Supports ruin official couples, but not necessarily because of shipping, it's because of Perma Death

[Jotari]

How many offical Couples can you name in Fire Emblem where both characters are playable? Off the top of my head, there's Marth and Shiida, Astram and Midia, Alm and Celica, Clive and Mathilda, Zeke and Tatiana, Abel and Est, pretty much Sheema and Samson, Sigurd and Deirdre, Quan and Ethly, kind of Leif and Nana, Pent and Louise, and Calill and Largo, Sothe and Micaiah, Astrid and Malkov, sort of Naesala and Leanne (though that's more shipping with only one option each). Maybe there's a few more that I'm forgetting, but it seems like the vast majority of official (playable) couples come from the first five games in the series. And I think that's the fault of supports, but not necessarily because shipping is a profitable business model. No, it's just plain harder to write supports for someone in a committed relationship. Which I've discovered directly trying to write supports for my own fan game. If a character is in a relationship with someone then that person is a major figure in their life and is going to naturally come up in conversation, particular if both of them are in the same social group. But in Fire Emblem there's always the case of "but what if they're dead". You either have to have the character just never talk or reference their significant other in the main part of their optional characterization, or dance around talking about them by using oblique references, for example Abel framing all his actions being about a shop instead of Est. Not to mention is the character does die, then that kind of would hugely effect their life and personality. Shipping based choose your own adventure couples don't get this same baggage because we kind of give it a pass. We know the reason Libra never mentions the love of his life Miriel (or whomever) is because their marriage is an entirely optional event. Though we do sometimes criticize how flirty A supports can be for characters ostensibly married to other people.

There are a number of ways of getting around this which they've tried with the couples appearing post the advent if supports. Pent and Louise were the first to try and the solution was to just have you lose both of them is one of them does. No need to worry about avoiding mentions or an absence of mourning because the widow just straight up leaves the army. Which by far makes the most sense as a narrative immersion aspect, but might feel a bit unfair from a gameplay perspective.

The other option would be alternate support scenarios. Which I'm guessing Callil and Largo did in Path of Radiance. Haven't actually checked but it's something Path of Radiance did in general. Sothe/Micaiah Astrid/Malkov and sort of Naesala/Leanne get away with being in a post Kaga game without proper  supports, though four of the above would have the advantage of being characters who can't canonically die, which gets around the issue entirely.

The other solution is to only make one of the pair playable and just have the other couple hang around in a few basic scenes. And while they have done that and made some family men characters Dorcas, Frost, Alois to name a few, it's not really the same thing. It's always character+mostly off screen accessory that's not a real character. It's still something I'd like to see them do more rather than an entire army of hot young singles, but it's not the same thing as a couple where both are playable or major characters.

So, yeah, tl;dr it's directly more difficult to write supports for a person whose life partner could be dead, though there are ways around it that the games have dipped their toes into and could stand to try more often.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

Y'know, maybe only having avatar supports was an alright idea after all.

[Metal Flash]

Never thought of this, but you make a good point. It gets hard to reference other characters when they could be dead/not recruited.

Of those options, I like alternate support scenarios the most, but know it would be time consuming to write. A smaller cast might alleviate this a little.

[Florete]

What have I been saying about permadeath these past few years?

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

Which I'm guessing Callil and Largo did in Path of Radiance.

Calill and Largo aren't yet together in PoR. They get together in between the games...after which Largo becomes non-playable.

[Jotari]

8 minutes ago, Florete said:

What have I been saying about permadeath these past few years?

Calill and Largo aren't yet together in PoR. They get together in between the games...after which Largo becomes non-playable.

What? Oh really? Oh, well put those two on the "In games without proper supports" to further my theory then. They at least know each other in Path of Radiance I'm pretty sure. Huh, I guess that makes Largo the most significant partner to a playable character in the series. Suck it Natalie.

[X-Naut]

I think supports in general could benefit from being less formulaic, and for more than just official coupling. Like, must all pairs have 3-4 conversation interactions? Some could get away with just one or two, and if one needs five or six to get their arc across then go for it! Also, let characters with an established relationship start with bonuses again. Why must everyone build it from the ground up?

Three Houses was a step in the right direction with some supports only going up to B and certain pairs having plus supports to fill in the gaps.

[FlamesOfRagnell]

Yeah, I've been thinking this. I believe there should be far less supports if it means the dialogue can change significantly based on character deaths. 

I might say something similar for main story dialogue, but what would that nesessitate? A far smaller cast? 

Honestly, I just want the dialogue in general to be more affected by character deaths. It's the reason I don't play Classic, because otherwise, to me, there's currently no reason not to just save scum or (depending on game) turn wheel to just keep everyone. 

[ciphertul]

I'm personally against forced pairs, I never really like the pairs they made.

[Jotari]

5 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

I'm personally against forced pairs, I never really like the pairs they made.

I doubt you're against committed couples in fiction entirely.

[ciphertul]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

I doubt you're against committed couples in fiction entirely.

Just FE’s, others feel better and less forced (in most cases).

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, ciphertul said:

Just FE’s, others feel better and less forced (in most cases).

Well then Fire Emblem just has to do it well. It's a bit hard to say they haven't done it well so far when there's all of one example of it (Pent and Louise). Literally all the others are from games without supports (or games remade with supports, but pretty short low effort supports).

[ciphertul]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well then Fire Emblem just has to do it well. It's a bit hard to say they haven't done it well so far when there's all of one example of it (Pent and Louise). Literally all the others are from games without supports (or games remade with supports, but pretty short low effort supports).

Pent and Louise was okay, and I did forget them, but I would have liked more insight into it. I don't hold high expectation for them here.

[lenticular]

That doesn't really sound like it's a problem with supports in particular. It's more just the conflict of permadeath with narrative and characterisation. Even if we got rid of supports and did character storytelling in a different way -- maybe Tellius style base conversations, maybe something like walking around the monastery in Three Houses -- then we're still going to run into the same problem. Fundamentally, if we give characters a lot of dialogue then at some point it's going to make sense for them to talk about other people, and that's hard if we don't know whether said people are alive.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

That doesn't really sound like it's a problem with supports in particular. It's more just the conflict of permadeath with narrative and characterisation. Even if we got rid of supports and did character storytelling in a different way -- maybe Tellius style base conversations, maybe something like walking around the monastery in Three Houses -- then we're still going to run into the same problem. Fundamentally, if we give characters a lot of dialogue then at some point it's going to make sense for them to talk about other people, and that's hard if we don't know whether said people are alive.

Well I'd put it this way, I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast, vast majority of couples originate from games without supports. Does that mean the existing couples are fully rounded and developed, oh hell no. If I recall correctly, even the developers have noted how rushed and poorly executed Sigurd's and Deirdre's romance is, and that one is plot important! But the existence of the support system has made couples harder to write for. Or if you want to phrase it, the existence of more optional character building dialogue, but that kind of characterization in Fire Emblem mostly manifests in supports. Radiant Dawn does happen to have more couples as a game without supports, but with base conversation. Though the only real example we have from Radiant Dawn is Astrid-Makalov, as Sothe-Micaiah are plot important, Largo was mechanically killed for his romance and Naesala-Leanne actually getting hitched is almost entirely post game (and they're plot important). Still, the Base Convo system did work better for Astrd-Makalov, we managed to have several scenes with them with the only flag being "Are both of them and anyone else in the conversation alive?". Versus if there was a support system then Astrid still needs to have support chains even if Makalov has been killed, and for each of those support chains any reference to Makalov would need to be altered, and then vice versa for Astrid. The base convos didn't even need a single alternative (though I don't think people would be disappointed if there was).

Edited October 9, 2023 by Jotari

[lenticular]

23 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well I'd put it this way, I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast, vast majority of couples originate from games without supports.

Sure, I don't think it's coincidence either. But there's a whole lot of space between "complete coincidence" and "direct causation". I'm hesitant to say too much about the early games in teh series, since I've never played the Japan-only titles, but my understanding is that they were pretty light on characterisation. In which case, we could reframe the statement to say that most canon couples are from games with minimal characterisation.

Basically, it depends what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that having more characterisation makes canon couples more difficult, and that more characterisation in FE games generally takes the form of supports, then sure, I agree with that. If you are trying to say that out of all potential forms of characterisation, supports are uniquely poisitioned in how bad they are for canon couples, then I disagree with that.

From your list, if we're only including games in the characterisation era and are excluding pairings where the characters cannot possibly die, then that leaves us with Pent/Louise, Makalov/Astrid, Clive/Mathilda, and Zeke/Tatiana (the remake version of the last two). And of those, honestly, I would say that Makalov/Astrid is my least favourite of the bunch. None of them are amazing, but the Makalov/Astrid one just makes Astrid look like an idiot teenager saying "bUt I cAn FiX hIm" at best, and complete delusional at worst. I don't think it does any favours for either of the characters. Now, that's just me. If you or anyone else likes that pairing or particularly dislikes any of the others, then cool. But I don't think that there's some glaring and obvious gap in the quality here. I don't see enough evidence to convince me that base conversations would work significantly better than supports here.

[Jotari]

25 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Basically, it depends what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that having more characterisation makes canon couples more difficult, and that more characterisation in FE games generally takes the form of supports, then sure, I agree with that. If you are trying to say that out of all potential forms of characterisation, supports are uniquely poisitioned in how bad they are for canon couples, then I disagree with that.

In other words, yes, heightened characterization with perma death makes it harder to write for couples, but supports are also, if not uniquely, could I say, perhaps, specifically wrought with more issues. Because with a base conversation, there is no mechanical expectation to have alternate scenarios. In the base conversation where Rolf and Boyd argue between skill and speed and Mist or someone acts as an intermediary, there is only "Existence of Base Convo" or "Failed to Reach Base Convo Requirements (any of the involved characters are dead)". While alternate conversations for death characters would be appreciated, it's not necessary for a base convo to function. Supports are different though. If Mist is dead, Boyd still needs to have supports (wait isn't Boyd and Mist another example coming to think of it? That's an official pairing, right? Or is it only official if you support them and Boyd shows up for that one scene where she faints or something). Unless a character just loses access to vast swaths of their support chains after losing someone mentioned in those support chains, alternate supports need to be written. Or the supports need to either never mention their SO or mention them in an ambiguous way that could be someone else. In other words, base conversations can be more easily axed entirely if the complications of death arise, but for support the complications of death are going to have further reaching effects.

25 minutes ago, lenticular said:

From your list, if we're only including games in the characterisation era and are excluding pairings where the characters cannot possibly die, then that leaves us with Pent/Louise, Makalov/Astrid, Clive/Mathilda, and Zeke/Tatiana (the remake version of the last two). And of those, honestly, I would say that Makalov/Astrid is my least favourite of the bunch. None of them are amazing, but the Makalov/Astrid one just makes Astrid look like an idiot teenager saying "bUt I cAn FiX hIm" at best, and complete delusional at worst. I don't think it does any favours for either of the characters. Now, that's just me. If you or anyone else likes that pairing or particularly dislikes any of the others, then cool. But I don't think that there's some glaring and obvious gap in the quality here. I don't see enough evidence to convince me that base conversations would work significantly better than supports here.

I know Astrid and Makalov are a particularly unpopular pairing, but that's pretty much entirely down to the personalities at play and not a result of Astrid being in a room with multiple people when she talks about and to Makalov.

[lenticular]

20 minutes ago, Jotari said:

In other words, yes, heightened characterization with perma death makes it harder to write for couples, but supports are also, if not uniquely, could I say, perhaps, specifically wrought with more issues. Because with a base conversation, there is no mechanical expectation to have alternate scenarios. In the base conversation where Rolf and Boyd argue between skill and speed and Mist or someone acts as an intermediary, there is only "Existence of Base Convo" or "Failed to Reach Base Convo Requirements (any of the involved characters are dead)". While alternate conversations for death characters would be appreciated, it's not necessary for a base convo to function. Supports are different though. If Mist is dead, Boyd still needs to have supports (wait isn't Boyd and Mist another example coming to think of it? That's an official pairing, right? Or is it only official if you support them and Boyd shows up for that one scene where she faints or something). Unless a character just loses access to vast swaths of their support chains after losing someone mentioned in those support chains, alternate supports need to be written. Or the supports need to either never mention their SO or mention them in an ambiguous way that could be someone else. In other words, base conversations can be more easily axed entirely if the complications of death arise, but for support the complications of death are going to have further reaching effects.

OK, I do see your point there and can partially agree. But I also think we just don't have a big enough sample size to really make too many pronouncements about base conversations. We only have one example of a canon couple explored through base conversations, and it's a pretty crappy one. And yeah, like you say, the crappiness of Astrid/Makalov isn't the fault of the base conversation system, but it doesn't mean that we don't have a single shining example to hold up to demonstrate the potential of the system.

I'd also say that the characterisation of Radiant Dawn's original characters is pretty thin on the ground. The basec onversations are cool and they give us a lot more than we get in a game like Shadow Dragon, for instance, but I still don't feel that I know Leonardo and Laura nearly as well as I know Rolf and Rhys (for instance). Radiant Dawn gets by because we know so many of the characters from Path of Radiance and because the constant army switching means that we aren't sticking with any group long enough to notice how thinly they're being characterised. But if the same system were moved to a game with a more standard structure, then I can imagine that there'd be more of a need to flesh them out further, and that this could reintroduce some of the same pressures as supports. For instance, if all characters in the game had at least half a dozen base conversations, then it would feel particularly egregious if Astrid didn't get any just because Makalov was dead. Again, it's not due to the precise fromat of teh characterisation, it's due to how much of it there is.

(As far as I recall, Boyd/Mist is one of those "only if you make them support" pairings, similar to something like Naesala/Leanne or Bastian/Lucia. I'm too lazy to go and actually look it up and check just now, though.)

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

OK, I do see your point there and can partially agree. But I also think we just don't have a big enough sample size to really make too many pronouncements about base conversations. We only have one example of a canon couple explored through base conversations, and it's a pretty crappy one. And yeah, like you say, the crappiness of Astrid/Makalov isn't the fault of the base conversation system, but it doesn't mean that we don't have a single shining example to hold up to demonstrate the potential of the system.

I'd also say that the characterisation of Radiant Dawn's original characters is pretty thin on the ground. The basec onversations are cool and they give us a lot more than we get in a game like Shadow Dragon, for instance, but I still don't feel that I know Leonardo and Laura nearly as well as I know Rolf and Rhys (for instance). Radiant Dawn gets by because we know so many of the characters from Path of Radiance and because the constant army switching means that we aren't sticking with any group long enough to notice how thinly they're being characterised. But if the same system were moved to a game with a more standard structure, then I can imagine that there'd be more of a need to flesh them out further, and that this could reintroduce some of the same pressures as supports. For instance, if all characters in the game had at least half a dozen base conversations, then it would feel particularly egregious if Astrid didn't get any just because Makalov was dead. Again, it's not due to the precise fromat of teh characterisation, it's due to how much of it there is.

(As far as I recall, Boyd/Mist is one of those "only if you make them support" pairings, similar to something like Naesala/Leanne or Bastian/Lucia. I'm too lazy to go and actually look it up and check just now, though.)

Well that seems to be heading towards a Base Convos vs Support argument, which I'm not really trying to push. I don't think there's any real need for the two to compete at all Both could coexist within the same game. And really, my entire purpose with this thread wasn't even to suggest a solution, it was more to identify a problem. Even though it actually didn't have any canon couples, I think Path of Radiance's solution of alternate supports is a great one. Of course, it takes marginally more work, but not actually a huge amount if you see what the alternate lines of dialogue in Path of Radiance are. The conversations don't really change, it's mostly just acknowledgements. Like on the subject of Makalov, I think in one of them he is just picking flowers he intends to give to Marcia, while it another he's picking flowers to put on her grave. In either event he's picking flowers and cares about his sister, but just a few words changed gives a whole different vibe while the rest is intact (it is possible it's Marcia that does this and not Makalov, and maybe neither, but flower picking is one example that I can remember).