Why are supports still considered to be a good form of storytelling in FE?

[Florete]

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Gonna hard disagree with you here. I would rather Fire Emblem move more towards permadeath and away from character-driven storytelling.

Firstly, as I covered in my original response all those days ago, the emergent plot from gameplay is a lot more interesting than whatever is written by the writers. This makes sense, because Fire Emblem is a video game and not a visual novel...I mean, it kind of is a visual novel, but there's a clear conflict between those two elements. It's also a narrative structure which is much more unique to Fire Emblem than scrapping permadeath would be.

Furthermore, I honestly think characters were better when they didn't have tons of supports. Castor (the 30 defense general) has very little dialogue, but you can easily tell whether he's the kind of guy you like or not. When you have very few lines to work with, even a bad writer is forced to make those lines put in work.

(Whoa, I hadn't noticed someone had posted agreement with my sentiment until you quoted it, that's cool)

I agree with a lot of what you say here in general. The problem is that FE currently is in a middle ground where permadeath and story-telling are fighting each other for survival. It's just not working in its current state. The Shadow Dragon method of lots of characters with bare minimum dialogue works for a game with permadeath and I would never say permadeath should be gone from that game, but at this point, more games in the series don't work like that than those that do. That's clearly the direction they want, and it doesn't work with permadeath.

tl;dr Fire Emblem needs to move more towards permadeath or more towards character-driven storytelling, cutting one for the other.

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Florete said:

(Whoa, I hadn't noticed someone had posted agreement with my sentiment until you quoted it, that's cool)

I agree with a lot of what you say here in general. The problem is that FE currently is in a middle ground where permadeath and story-telling are fighting each other for survival. It's just not working in its current state. The Shadow Dragon method of lots of characters with bare minimum dialogue works for a game with permadeath and I would never say permadeath should be gone from that game, but at this point, more games in the series don't work like that than those that do. That's clearly the direction they want, and it doesn't work with permadeath.

tl;dr Fire Emblem needs to move more towards permadeath or more towards character-driven storytelling, cutting one for the other.

I think it's more than possible to do both. It just requires, well a lot more effort than it seems like they're interested in putting in. I think Path of Radiance is the best example of implementing character driven story telling and permadeath, and no I'm not just talking about changing supports based on who's alive and when you are in the story and all that (of course that attention to detail is great), but even in the actual main story they have tonnes of alternate dialogue, especially in the beginning based on who's alive and who's dead. Path of Radiance also has who I would rate as the best side character for personal story development by a country mile in the form of Jill who is completely optional but slots really well into the story with loads of unique scenes and thematic resonance with the plot. It's possible to do all this kind of stuff again, and it's possible to do it better than Path of Radiance too, it just takes a tonne of effort to write loads of alternate scenarios and implement character arcs that fit neatly into the story, but don't damage the story with their removal. I think for the writers to ever see this as something that's worth the effort to go to though, they need to take a few steps back and encourage permadeath via the gameplay. Shadow Dragon went way to extreme with it requiring you to slaughter like 70% of your army to get bonus content, but the concept of compensation for characters dying to discourage resets isn't the worst idea in the world, especially if you can tie it into the plot. Support characters getting temporary stat boosts if their partner dies mid mp is one example of something that I think could work quite well for gameplay and would actually be well received by typical resetting players and it would be melding the story and gameplay together and rather than wanting to reset right away, the player can instead be lead into wanting to use the temporarly super powered unit to finish the map for fun.

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 6/9/2021 at 10:17 PM, Florete said:

(Whoa, I hadn't noticed someone had posted agreement with my sentiment until you quoted it, that's cool)

I am very cool, thank you.

On 6/9/2021 at 10:17 PM, Florete said:

The Shadow Dragon method of lots of characters with bare minimum dialogue works for a game with permadeath and I would never say permadeath should be gone from that game, but at this point, more games in the series don't work like that than those that do.

True, but I know more series which don't work like that in any of their entries, so I'd say it's a novelty worth reverting to and preserving.

On 6/9/2021 at 10:17 PM, Florete said:

tl;dr Fire Emblem needs to move more towards permadeath or more towards character-driven storytelling, cutting one for the other.

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think it's more than possible to do both. It just requires, well a lot more effort than it seems like they're interested in putting in.

I stand on the side of specialization here.

Note that effort puts a restraint on what you can actually get- as does talent. So even if doing both is possible, it might be highly impractical and unlikely to work out in practice.

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Path of Radiance also has who I would rate as the best side character for personal story development by a country mile in the form of Jill who is completely optional but slots really well into the story with loads of unique scenes and thematic resonance with the plot.

Yeah, but Jill is also the only character who has something like that. She's the only character in the series which can meaningfully betray you, something which actual plots in actual narrative mediums have been doing for, uh...thousands of years. In a book or movie, something which is actually supposed to be carried by the story, you would want every character to have unique scenes, thematic resonance with the plot, and general relevance. Otherwise it would just be sloppy.

That all aside, there would still need to be a refocusing of efforts, even if you did try to "have it both ways" as in Path of Radiance. You know what Path of Radiance had that newer games (I have not played Three Houses) don't? Recruitable enemies. That, I think, sums up the difference in design philosophy surrounding characters. Even in Revelation, which has like 80 characters or something, you're not supposed to "miss" anyone outside of the kids and a few secret characters (which still leaves you with an overabundance of characters), even though none of them are crucial to the story.

[Clear World]

I find a lot of this thread amusing, seeing how I personally think one of the bigger issues hindering story-driven stories in FE games is the increased importance of a 'blank' avatar character, though this doesn't mean avoiding a 'blank' avatar character will automatically make the story good or have rich characters.

Allocating time and resources to prop up an avatar who has no real concrete personality, trait, or even physical appearance, doesn't really add much to the story when the avatar usually doesn't add much to the story other than the fact that they are the mcguffin or super special awesome person that everyone just seems to be attracted to & will refer to this character as a nickname that may not make any sense beyond a certain point in the story (like professor after five years of not being your teacher). I personally don't see the issue of just being making the player be a god-like figured manipulating the units from a higher plane of existence. It honestly wouldn't be out of the ordinary in a series like Fire Emblem, and then we don't need to waste time with the avatar and just spend time with the other characters.

19 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

On 6/9/2021 at 9:17 PM, Florete said:

tl;dr Fire Emblem needs to move more towards permadeath or more towards character-driven storytelling, cutting one for the other.

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think it's more than possible to do both. It just requires, well a lot more effort than it seems like they're interested in putting in.

I stand on the side of specialization here.

Note that effort puts a restraint on what you can actually get- as does talent. So even if doing both is possible, it might be highly impractical and unlikely to work out in practice.

I'm not against if the creators wanted to make permadeath core to the game (I would even advocate for it), but there's no reason why they can't do both. Most stories don't really focus on a large cast. Even in stories that have a large cast, most times, only a handful of character really get the spotlight during the story with the rest having small bit roles. So I don't see the pressing need of 'specialization' here.

Permadeath & character-driven storytelling aren't really exclusive to one another. Though, permadeath will obviously cause the story to be needed crafted around that mechanic.

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think for the writers to ever see this as something that's worth the effort to go to though, they need to take a few steps back and encourage permadeath via the gameplay.

It would be nice, but I don't think they really need to thru gameplay. You can give players the options to choose permadeath or casual mode, but I feel that if the creators communicated to the players on why the game was designed/balanced around permadeath & that permadeath is the intended mode people should play, I think a lot of people would try it.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Clear World

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I am very cool, thank you.

True, but I know more series which don't work like that in any of their entries, so I'd say it's a novelty worth reverting to and preserving.

I stand on the side of specialization here.

Note that effort puts a restraint on what you can actually get- as does talent. So even if doing both is possible, it might be highly impractical and unlikely to work out in practice.

Yeah, but Jill is also the only character who has something like that. She's the only character in the series which can meaningfully betray you, something which actual plots in actual narrative mediums have been doing for, uh...thousands of years. In a book or movie, something which is actually supposed to be carried by the story, you would want every character to have unique scenes, thematic resonance with the plot, and general relevance. Otherwise it would just be sloppy.

That all aside, there would still need to be a refocusing of efforts, even if you did try to "have it both ways" as in Path of Radiance. You know what Path of Radiance had that newer games (I have not played Three Houses) don't? Recruitable enemies. That, I think, sums up the difference in design philosophy surrounding characters. Even in Revelation, which has like 80 characters or something, you're not supposed to "miss" anyone outside of the kids and a few secret characters (which still leaves you with an overabundance of characters), even though none of them are crucial to the story.

Three Houses kind of sort of has recruitable enemies. One of each unit per house can betray you if you recruit them from a different house, and then you can recruit them back. But what is pretty disappointing about it is that the enemy recruitment isn't implemented into the gameplay. They're just enemy units and when you kill them a pop up box appears asking if you want to spare them, and then if you do they're recruited after the chapter (without the stats they had as an enemy). No trying to avoid killing them or trying to get the right character to talk to them, just a yes no choice.

4 hours ago, Clear World said:

I find a lot of this thread amusing, seeing how I personally think one of the bigger issues hindering story-driven stories in FE games is the increased importance of a 'blank' avatar character, though this doesn't mean avoiding a 'blank' avatar character will automatically make the story good or have rich characters.

Allocating time and resources to prop up an avatar who has no real concrete personality, trait, or even physical appearance, doesn't really add much to the story when the avatar usually doesn't add much to the story other than the fact that they are the mcguffin or super special awesome person that everyone just seems to be attracted to & will refer to this character as a nickname that may not make any sense beyond a certain point in the story (like professor after five years of not being your teacher). I personally don't see the issue of just being making the player be a god-like figured manipulating the units from a higher plane of existence. It honestly wouldn't be out of the ordinary in a series like Fire Emblem, and then we don't need to waste time with the avatar and just spend time with the other characters.

I'm not against if the creators wanted to make permadeath core to the game (I would even advocate for it), but there's no reason why they can't do both. Most stories don't really focus on a large cast. Even in stories that have a large cast, most times, only a handful of character really get the spotlight during the story with the rest having small bit roles. So I don't see the pressing need of 'specialization' here.

Permadeath & character-driven storytelling aren't really exclusive to one another. Though, permadeath will obviously cause the story to be needed crafted around that mechanic.

It would be nice, but I don't think they really need to thru gameplay. You can give players the options to choose permadeath or casual mode, but I feel that if the creators communicated to the players on why the game was designed/balanced around permadeath & that permadeath is the intended mode people should play, I think a lot of people would try it.

This really strikes to the heart of the issue. I have no issue at all with casual mode as an option, but I do have an issue when casual mode starts becoming the design philosophy of the series, which I think we're slowly inching towards. I think there should be more modes than just Casual and Classic, at least an intermediate mode between the two where units killed in battle are injured and left out of  a few chapters as a penalty. A proper Iron Man mode above Classic would be appreciated by a substantial number of fans too, I think. There are ways to make permadeath an integrated part of the story, but there's no motive to do it until it's a properly integrated part of the gameplay.

[Florete]

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

I have no issue at all with casual mode as an option, but I do have an issue when casual mode starts becoming the design philosophy of the series, which I think we're slowly inching towards.

Slowly? Nah, FE has been going there since before Casual mode itself even existed. I'd say as early as Genealogy the games were starting to be designed around the assumption the player would be keeping units alive.

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

A proper Iron Man mode above Classic would be appreciated by a substantial number of fans too, I think.

Keep in mind, this is still something you could do if permadeath were removed, even on your own without an official "iron man" mode. Units who fall once just wouldn't be usable anymore.

[Jotari]

45 minutes ago, Florete said:

Slowly? Nah, FE has been going there since before Casual mode itself even existed. I'd say as early as Genealogy the games were starting to be designed around the assumption the player would be keeping units alive.

Keep in mind, this is still something you could do if permadeath were removed, even on your own without an official "iron man" mode. Units who fall once just wouldn't be usable anymore.

It's something you can do now with classic, but I would still rather a dedicated Iron Man mode so the option to reset is out of my hands. Because relying on my will power to ignore resetting is rarely a solid strategy.

[Clear World]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It's something you can do now with classic, but I would still rather a dedicated Iron Man mode so the option to reset is out of my hands. Because relying on my will power to ignore resetting is rarely a solid strategy.

It would not be impossible for the creators to add an 'Iron Man' mode thing, though I wouldn't bet on it happening.

Though, something I would like (which you did mention previously) would be a way to be more like more adjustable mode between classic and casual. Like for example, if there was an FE6 remake, after selecting New Game, the game would provide a third option that I'm just going to label as Custom Mode that allows you to tweak some stuff about the game (that the creators have already flirted in previous installments):

Difficulty                                         (Easy / Normal / Hard / Maddening)

Death Setting                                 (Permadeath / Retreat / Phoenix)

Divine Pulse Cap                           (0 - 9 / unlimited)  &  (per map / per campaign)

Arena Max Cap                             (0 - 3 / unlimited)

Enable Skirmishes                        (Yes / No)

      Skirmishes Cap                       (0 - 9 / unlimited)

Enable Battle Save                        (Yes / No)

      Battle Save Cap                       (0 - 9 / unlimited)

Classic & Casual mode would be essentially be pre-sets of these options (excluding difficulty), and these settings would be changeable in-between chapters regardless of which mode you choose initially. For an Iron Man mode, they would basically have to perform Auto-Battle Saves.

Well anyways, this is a thread about storytelling. So I'll try not to divert from it. To help the process of developing a rich story with strong character development, it would be a benefit if the creators decided firmly what was the intended mode of play for the game early in the process so they are aware of the limitations and work arounds they have to do. For example, I do like 3 Houses, but that game is clearly not designed around permadeath. If anything, permadeath in that game is really just tacked on. So it also sucks that some of the game's story and most characters' development are also held back by the same limitations that a games based around permadeath dictates. 

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Clear World said:

For example, I do like 3 Houses, but that game is clearly not designed around permadeath. If anything, permadeath in that game is really just tacked on. So it also sucks that some of the game's story and most characters' development are also held back by the same limitations that a games based around permadeath dictates. 

I agree with this. 3H clearly wants to utilize and develop its cast in the main story but because they have to take permadeath into account all it really amounts to is maybe like one or two lines of generic dialogue every chapter and nothing of substance. I feel like if Permadeath wasn’t there then the side characters would have more to do in the story itself.

[Samz707]

3 hours ago, Clear World said:

 

Well anyways, this is a thread about storytelling. So I'll try not to divert from it. To help the process of developing a rich story with strong character development, it would be a benefit if the creators decided firmly what was the intended mode of play for the game early in the process so they are aware of the limitations and work arounds they have to do. For example, I do like 3 Houses, but that game is clearly not designed around permadeath. If anything, permadeath in that game is really just tacked on. So it also sucks that some of the game's story and most characters' development are also held back by the same limitations that a games based around permadeath dictates. 

 

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I agree with this. 3H clearly wants to utilize and develop its cast in the main story but because they have to take permadeath into account all it really amounts to is maybe like one or two lines of generic dialogue every chapter and nothing of substance. I feel like if Permadeath wasn’t there then the side characters would have more to do in the story itself.

Honestly I'm of the opposite opinion.

Sure Dorothea has her "We killed Ferdie" scene, but there's no equivalent scene for if he dies but he's on your side, Hell, make the graveyard bigger and have our students get graves there if they die.

Not to mention the "two lines of dialogue" is still far more than your average FE game.