Alternatively - and just hear me out here - we could not treat other characters exclusively as tools for our amusement with no agency or relevance outside of the PC? Just a thought.
Agreed, big time.
Eh, I am not a believer in fictional characters' rights.
On too many occasions I've done something ill-advised because it was an interesting route to take. Like revealing the Foundation to Yumika, because I was curious where she is going to take it. Or disregarding the global economy, which sadly didn't pass through.
Silas wants nothing more than to have a perfectly normal, boring life, but I see absolutely no reason to respect that wish as a quester.
1. I used to frequent the Bay12 forums. On too many occasions, I saw suggestion games which were practically ruined by people doing something moronic just for the lulz. (Since the Bay12 forums are the primary community for Dwarf Fortress players, this happened with some regularity.) In longer-running SGs, if one pays attention, they'll note that interesting things happen when the PC isn't an idiot, and that the interesting things that happen when they
are tend to cut off many of those interesting things.
2. Silas will not have a normal, boring life. One of his closest friends eats emotions.
Another doesn't really exist. He knows the existence of a group which threatens his hopes of having an ordinary life. His "big sister" is an AI who is programming a "little brother," which is now lost somewhere. (Who knows who picked it up, or what they're doing with him?) The Quest has been designed such that Silas cannot have an ordinary life.
3. I personally have no problem picking sub-optimal and "interesting" options, under one
critical condition: If it makes sense for the character. Take my recent vote to have Silas play a video game. Was it optimal? Frig, no! But it makes sense that he would want to do something comforting after a rough day with lots of socializing, high-tension social stuff, and almost no Big Sister. Oh, and speaking of which...
4. You may not care about the rights of characters in this quest's world, but Silas does. So does everyone around them. If we make Silas not respect the rights of other people, something will probably happen to Silas. Even if that doesn't cause any psychological issues,
we do not want Hanamura having to decide between "removing" an acquaintance and preserving his own normal.
I'm with Nevill on this one. The point of playing a game is to have fun, not to win. Sometimes, winning is fun, but sometimes, losing is fun too. And the most fun one can have is when it's not clear if the strategy is win or lose.
...
I recall some youtube game design personality putting it like this: "Given the chance, a player will optimize all the fun out of your game".
Let's consider this for a moment.
Why would players optimize the fun out of a game? Is it because, perchance,
they want to win?
But perhaps more importantly, we need to ask what the winstate of this game would be. I'm willing to bet that people who are against voting well for its own sake will define the winstate
much more strictly than the people who are for it.
For the record, I haven't been on SV for very long, and I prefer to pick the optimal choice pretty much all of the time. That being said, quests still need to be enjoyable for everyone, and sometimes the optimal choice can shut down the narrative(and the fun) pretty hard.
So can non-optimal decisions.
Let's take a semi-hypothetical example. On the aforementioned Bay12 forums, there was a suggestion game called The Warrens of Oric the Awesome. Early on, we found a strange item called the "Astral Influx". There were some suggestions of what to do with it, including "smash it," which initially won. Luckily, the GM was kind enough to tell us that destroying it would have serious consequences and allow a revote. It turns out that this was the player character's "soul star," which controlled character-switching, granted the PC various nifty abilities, and also stopped him from turning into a horrible, uncontrolled monster.
Is this an extreme example? Well, yeah. But where there are extreme examples, there are examples which are less extreme which yield a less-extreme form of the same outcome. And it brings me to another, crucial point...who decides what is "interesting"? Some people might find the idea of smashing a known plot-critical artifact interesting, others find the idea of using it interesting.
Everyone enjoys a trainwreck
No.
You might enjoy trainwrecks in general, and most people have some trainwrecks they enjoy. But there are people who don't like trainwrecks (unless they
really hate the train), and
nobody would be fine seeing
every train wrecked. Everyone has some trains that they want to see get from point A to point B without wrecking, even if the journey isn't effortless. Maybe someone they know or admire is on it, maybe it's historic, maybe it's just an unusually awesome train design.
To some people, this game falls into that category. They continue to engage with the game not because they want to see it wrecked, or even because they want to see
if it gets wrecked, but because they think the train is cool or they like the characters on it. And, bluntly, it seems insulting to want to see a train LuciDreamer clearly poured so much time and effort in wreck just because you want to see if it explodes.