So i just finished AoD

[AbounI]

Those who end up shining are those who have some other characteristic in their personality that is so intense that stands out. Personally, I don't remember anyone who has stood out to me, despite having enjoyed the game a lot.

Indeed, there are some good personalities in the game.
Didn't notice how Vince played whith the smile of Neleos? (you should check how Neleos is smiling while ending on a cross, simply fun). How the Commercium considers the business as a game, where all the heads of the guild want a seat around the table? How Lorenza is ready by every means to restore the former glory of its House (with a funny allusion about romance if you play an assassin) while being herself not the black widow you could expect (you should listen to her about the tragic ends of her husbands)?

 

[SausageInYourFace]

I recently played through AoD with a bunch of different characters. Got a bit tired of repeating shit eventually but only after several playthroughs, so thats fine. Lhynns way of playing strikes me as incredibly counterproductive to the whole design of the game.

If I may hijack the thread for a slightly unrelated question:

VD, do you have any professional background in history or at least an enthusiasts interest? Because you really got that perspectivism shit down where you give the player all sorts of different information, thats often skewed from certain perspectives, only partially correct, deformed by myth and so on. Some of the puzzle pieces the player can put together, sometimes one can make plausible assumptions and sometimes things are simply left open.

Not saying one necessarily gotta be a history enthusiast for that but it really struck me during the different playthroughs, particularly because of the meta-commentary by many of the loremasters about precisely these issues.

 

[Bohrain]

Given that the player character is a stranger who rises in faction ranks rapidly it makes sense that he attracts people whose main motive to interact with him is because they want to use him. It did feel samey, but on the other hand I've consumed way too much media where it feels like the characters and scenes are there to fill a checklist of tropes to present.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD, do you have any professional background in history or at least an enthusiasts interest?

My professional background is sales & management. The former gave me a good perspective on realistic conversations as essentially I talked for a living, the latter gave me a first-hand experience with corporate politics, scheming, plotting, backstabbing, and power grabs. All the fun of decadence.

I love reading history books and I've collected quite a library over the last twenty years. History is fascinating in a 'life stranger than fiction' way and it's always good to draw historical parallels and look at similar events to present fictional events in a realistic way.

 

[Drowed]

The question is would they ever show these qualities to your character? You aren't their friend or colleague, you're a pawn to be used (and discarded). Every asshole is someone's friend, lover, father, etc, but to those who think he's an asshole he will remain an asshole. You (the player) want to see these qualities to understand or appreciate the non-player characters more but your character can't because he/she is always on the wrong side of it.

Well, yeah, because you wrote the story that way. It's not as if the story had a life of its own and decided to always put you "on the other side," it was you, as an author, who decided to create a story where the character was always on this other side.

Meru plays the role of a savior, the champion of the people. Carbo is Paullus' loyal servant, his attack dog. Carrinas wants to clean up the mess and restore order, he isn't an asshole at all. Strabos wants a seat at the table, he's twice as capable as any lord but his low birth makes him a second class citizen. Hamza is as honorable as an assassin can be. Nobody is an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.

Of course, but that's not the point. It's less the motive that leads these characters to act as they do (idealism, security, values, state of society) and more simply the fact that's what they do. It's not the lack of justification but what they end up doing in the end. We can create believable stories where most characters have any other trait - let's say, for example, they are all insane and depressing. You can justify in a perfectly rational and reasonable way why each of them is like that... But it doesn't change that, in the end, most of them are like that. This isn't a criticism of the coherence of the characters, or of their ideology, or of their consistency in the story or anything of the sort. It's a critique of the author's choice to create a narrative where most characters share that same trait, for whatever reason.

You, as an author, could have created events in the story where you could develop a great and profound friendship (among other things) with one, or even several characters, throughout the game (just as you might have chosen to make AOD a game with a party). Or any other kind of interaction between the characters beyond a "pawn to be used." But you've decided not to do this, and surely you have your reasons and I am not questioning them. It's your vision. I'm just saying that as a viewer/player, this has created an effect on the narrative that makes most of the characters feel the same, even though they have their particular differences. I found the game's setting extremely interesting and the story is well developed, without a doubt. But I can barely remember any of the characters beyond their name and a vague idea of what they talked to me. They weren't badly written in any way, they just have not been really remarkable, I guess.

 

[Lhynn]

Meru plays the role of a savior

In my playthrough he came across as delusional and blind, and one of the greediest characters in the game. He renounced his crown but still sat at the throne, was an empty gesture meant to manipulate public opinion. He let the poor part of town steal from the rich as they pleased. He wanted to become a god but also was weak minded and lazy. He didnt give a fuck about anyone but himself.
He played the role of the savior to the ignorant.

Carbo

More like a lapdog, but yeah. I didnt get to interact much with him as an IG, which i thought was odd.

Paullus

Good character, lacked ambition. He surrounded himself with sycophants and sent anyone he tought dangerous or threatened him to a hellhole or a suicide mission. He got too comfortable behind that desk if you ask me.

Carrinas he isn't an asshole at all.

I liked Carrinas very much, gave him teron and made him into the first sword in one of the endings. He wanted to do the right things for the right reasons. He was a bit too hesitant by the end of the game tho, you would have tought that getting Teron would have emboldened him, but i actually had to convince the fucker to take what he had always wanted. Not a smart guy at all.
Why the fuck did i lose loyalty when i sided with Carrinas btw? My way of seeing it i was doing it for the Imperial Guard.

Strabos wants a seat at the table

Greedy fuck, and coward to boot. He played with fire and got burnt.

Hamza is as honorable as an assassin can be.

Wasnt too sold on the boatmen to be honest. Felt like they had fallen too far and didnt feel any desire to talk to them. I guess i will replay the game eventually.

Nobody is an asshole for the sake of being an asshole.

Yeah they are. I understand a bit of aprehension but nobody could stand my character before they even met him and even after he had solved all their problems.

Id like to add Gaelius to the list. That fucker was a complete hypocrite. Ready to condem anyone seeking the power of the magi ranting about how you dont play with fire. But as soon as he felt threatened he let the wolves in the hen house.

I could go on forever with the characters i met, they were fairly interesting. Its just that they lacked humanity.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The question is would they ever show these qualities to your character? You aren't their friend or colleague, you're a pawn to be used (and discarded). Every asshole is someone's friend, lover, father, etc, but to those who think he's an asshole he will remain an asshole. You (the player) want to see these qualities to understand or appreciate the non-player characters more but your character can't because he/she is always on the wrong side of it.

Well, yeah, because you wrote the story that way. It's not as if the story had a life of its own and decided to always put you "on the other side," it was you, as author, who decided to create a story where the character was always on this other side.

What's your point? That such stories are worse than other kinds of stories? That always being on the other side is somehow unrealistic? I spent years on that side and I doubt that my experience is that unique.

It's a critique of the author's choice to create a narrative where most characters share that same trait, for whatever reason.

Merely an observation. People who end up at the top do share many traits because you have to have these traits to advance and deal with rivals and challengers.

You, as an author, could have created events in the story where you could develop a great and profound friendship (among other things) with one, or even several characters, throughout the game (just as you might have chosen to make AOD a game with a party).

I'm reading about Albrecht von Wallenstein now. Fascinating character. From a poor nobleman to military contractor to mercenary leader to the supreme commander of the Hapsburg's armies during the 30 Years War. The Emperor had to assassinate him to get rid of him, which was done in the most cinematic way. His story isn't about great and profound friendships but about a guy who was an exceptionally gifted son of a bitch, treacherous, ambitious, and very capable. Before reading about him I wouldn't think that some impoverished minor noble could rise that high, yet there he was. My point is that a story doesn't have to be 'balanced' with love and friendship if its focus isn't on life in general but on a professional career in a volatile, violent environment.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Meru plays the role of a savior

In my playthrough he came across as delusional and blind, and one of the greediest characters in the game. He renounced his crown but still sat at the throne, was an empty gesture meant to manipulate public opinion. He let the poor part of town steal from the rich as they pleased. He wanted to become a god but also was weak minded and lazy. He didnt give a fuck about anyone but himself.
He played the role of the savior to the ignorant.

Is there any other kind of savior?

Carbo

More like a lapdog, but yeah. I didnt get to interact much with him as an IG, which i thought was odd.

You can talk to him when he comes to fetch you to Paullus and you can have the best conversation with him if you're on the opposite side and go to parley with him.

Good character, lacked ambition. He surrounded himself with sycophants and sent anyone he tought dangerous or threatened him to a hellhole or a suicide mission. He got too comfortable behind that desk if you ask me.

If you talk to more people you might realize that he sent Carrinas to Teron on purpose, knowing full well that he won't just sit there quietly. Good way to stir up shit and put more pressure on everyone.

Why the fuck did i lose loyalty when i sided with Carrinas btw? My way of seeing it i was doing it for the Imperial Guard.

Because Paullus is the Dux not Carrinas. You convinced Carrinas to betray Paullus and weaken the Guards because you thought it was a good idea. You didn't follow the orders you were scheming and plotting.

Yeah they are. I understand a bit of aprehension but nobody could stand my character before they even met him and even after he had solved all their problems.

I take it you've never worked for people who expected you to solve all their problems but didn't really appreciate your efforts because they thought it was your job? Sorta 'we hired you to do this job and because you do it well we won't fire you, so keep up the good work'.

Id like to add Gaelius to the list. That fucker was a complete hypocrite. Ready to condem anyone seeking the power of the magi ranting about how you dont play with fire. But as soon as he felt threatened he let the wolves in the hen house.

In other words, a politician.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

hi gusie i playd ze gaem with cheets heres my review: itz 2 eesy
i also rushed thru ze gayme and skipped half ze content and heres my opinion on teh plot: itz full o holes
i also cheeted to max out my statz and i think the system is shallow and shitty
also i expected friendly and likable chars u know like in jrpgs from square enix but every1 is mean to me fuck this shit
what a shitty game, it sucks balls

so here's my final verdict, 10/10 great game

 

[Lhynn]

hi gusie i playd ze gaem with cheets heres my review: itz 2 eesy

Never said that.

i also rushed thru ze gayme and skipped half ze content and heres my opinion on teh plot: itz full o holes

Didnt do that.

i also cheeted to max out my statz and i think the system is shallow and shitty

Didnt do that either, character was hardly maxed. The system being shallow was a complain i had already raised the previous two times i tried playing it, before i beame utterly bored with just murdering shit without any real purpose or agency. Better civics gives your character a semblance of agency.

also i expected friendly and likable chars u know like in jrpgs from square enix but every1 is mean to me fuck this shit

Retarded exageration, my examples were from fallout, another post apo rpg that most people here can agree has decent writing.

what a shitty game, it sucks balls

I actually liked it very much, just not a rabid fanboy like most of the ones still in this subforum.

so here's my final verdict, 10/10 great game

Not into numeric scales. It is a great game tho, but not beyond criticism.

 

[Lhynn]

Is there any other kind of savior?

There could be principled guys with a sense of justice. Tho it does say a lot about your view of the world.

If you talk to more people you might realize that he sent Carrinas to Teron on purpose, knowing full well that he won't just sit there quietly. Good way to stir up shit and put more pressure on everyone.

May be so, but he was still bitching and moaning about carrinas doing what he should have known carrinas would do. Which if what you are saying is true (which it is, after all you wrote the guy), makes him a bigger idiot than i thought at first.

Because Paullus is the Dux not Carrinas. You convinced Carrinas to betray Paullus and weaken the Guards because you thought it was a good idea. You didn't follow the orders you were scheming and plotting.

I followed the orders to the letter, but when it came time to resolve the siege at Ganezzar i had several choices to deal with the situation. I could go and get a super ship, i could talk to pallus or i could talk to carrinas. The super ship was giving Meru a weapon of mass destruction, and Paullus as i said, was an old man that should have retired a long time ago. I just didnt respect chain of command, that was a deduction in IG reputation, but shouldnt have touched loyalty, as my loyalties didnt lie with Paullus, but with the imperial guard as a whole.

I take it you've never worked for people who expected you to solve all their problems but didn't really appreciate your efforts because they thought it was your job?

I did, but thats not every single human being i have ever worked with or worked for.

 

[Tigranes]

From your own breakdown of the different characters that you encountered or didn't encounter, it doesn't really sound like 'none of the characters are likeable' in this monotonous and dreary way.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Is there any other kind of savior?

There could be principled guys with a sense of justice. Tho it does say a lot about your view of the world.

The problem with saviors is that they always cause more problems and misery. Luther wanted to make the world a better place but his teachings caused endless bloodshed, suffering, and the thirty years war. The French revolutionaries wanted to bring forth freedom and equality but brought the reign of terror and guillotines working 24/7. Lenin & Co did the same in Russia but with machine guns instead of the guillotines. Cromwell outlawed pointless enjoyments such as dancing, sports, and Christmas, even though he didn't follow these rules himself. The American Puritans followed the same principles and successfully built hell on Earth in the early colonies. Marx and other leftist agitators thought they had it all figured out because it worked so well on paper. Etc.

If you talk to more people you might realize that he sent Carrinas to Teron on purpose, knowing full well that he won't just sit there quietly. Good way to stir up shit and put more pressure on everyone.

May be so, but he was still bitching and moaning about carrinas doing what he should have known carrinas would do. Which if what you are saying is true (which it is, after all you wrote the guy), makes him a bigger idiot than i thought at first.

Was he supposed to be open and honest with you, the guy he just met who could be anyone's agent?

Because Paullus is the Dux not Carrinas. You convinced Carrinas to betray Paullus and weaken the Guards because you thought it was a good idea. You didn't follow the orders you were scheming and plotting.

I followed the orders to the letter, but when it came time to resolve the siege at Ganezzar i had several choices to deal with the situation. I could go and get a super ship, i could talk to pallus or i could talk to carrinas. The super ship was giving Meru a weapon of mass destruction, and Paullus as i said, was an old man that should have retired a long time ago. I just didnt respect chain of command, that was a deduction in IG reputation, but shouldnt have touched loyalty, as my loyalties didnt lie with Paullus, but with the imperial guard as a whole.

Yes you had different choices and you had your orders from Paullus. You decided to ignore them and do what you think is right, which happened to be the opposite of what Paullus wanted you to do. It's usually called mutiny and it rarely gets you a pat on the back.

 

[Lhynn]

The problem with saviors is that they always cause more problems and misery.

Id be fine with that. Would fit the themes of the game but would also be widly different from every other interaction in the game.

Was he supposed to be open and honest with you, the guy he just met who could be anyone's agent?

Nope, but maybe a check in perception would have helped there. There were plenty others when you felt you were being lied to or people were holding out on you.

Yes you had different choices and you had your orders from Paullus. You decided to ignore them and do what you think is right, which happened to be the opposite of what Paullus wanted you to do. It's usually called mutiny and it rarely gets you a pat on the back.

I guess we could debate this all day. Its fine, just believed Carrinas was in the right, and the guy had taken care of me before sending me to madoraan. Pallus just sent me everywhere with virtually no men or resources, to do things that were basically impossible, if it wasnt the player character those decisions would have failed expectacularly. Slapped a legatus title on me without any real weight and called it a day. I owed the man no allegiance and i acted in what i believed were the best interests of the imperial guard (and i was right).
Meru calls it when we meet for the first time.

 

[Lhynn]

From your own breakdown of the different characters that you encountered or didn't encounter, it doesn't really sound like 'none of the characters are likeable' in this monotonous and dreary way.

I never said it was monotonous or dreary, i said they were fairly interesting. I just said that they all behaved like they didnt have any humanity left in them, which made every interaction feel samey and every character come across as an unlikeable asshole.

My professional background is sales & management. The former gave me a good perspective on realistic conversations as essentially I talked for a living

And here it is. Explains why the conversations feel so stiff and impersonal.

VD can't write nothing apart from sombre narratives about people of ideals turning out to be either crooks or idiots, don't insist on anything which isn't tonally in line with what is already there in AoD because nigga will neither provide nor acknowledge it as conceptually interesting

Yeah, i guess this is another ones of AoDs dead horses.

 

[Tigranes]

Fair enough, I can see the argument that having, say, a saviour type dashed on the rocks could add to the tone without disrupting it. (I think Antidas does a little bit of that, with his grandiose dreams.) I think the addition of religion in Colony Ship will go some of the way to addressing this, i.e. VD's VD-ish take on religion, that is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The problem with saviors is that they always cause more problems and misery.

Id be fine with that. Would fit the themes of the game but would also be widly different from every other interaction in the game.

Antidas, Meru, Carrinas, Strabos (representing the middle class), the zealots - there is no shortage of saviors wishing to change the world for the better in AoD.

Was he supposed to be open and honest with you, the guy he just met who could be anyone's agent?

Nope, but maybe a check in perception would have helped there. There were plenty others when you felt you were being lied to or people were holding out on you.

You have no way of knowing in this situation. Miltiades' offer is too good to be true, so a perception check is fitting there. Same is with the pickpocket girl as you realize that the whole thing is staged, but when someone you've just met makes some comments, you can't tell if he means it or not, just like you can't tell if Trump's recent DACA offer is genuine or pure salesmanship to force the Democrats to react. Both options are equally plausible at this stage and no perception check would help you there.

Yes you had different choices and you had your orders from Paullus. You decided to ignore them and do what you think is right, which happened to be the opposite of what Paullus wanted you to do. It's usually called mutiny and it rarely gets you a pat on the back.

I guess we could debate this all day. Its fine, just believed Carrinas was in the right, and the guy had taken care of me before sending me to madoraan.

I understand why you felt this way (wouldn't much of a choice otherwise) but the choice is not between loyalty to Carrinas and loyalty to the Imperial Guards. The choice is between following your orders and deciding - like many characters in AoD so you fit right in - that you know better and then dragging Carrinas into this mess, forcing him to betray his faction.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

So are the systems straightforward or are they metagamey. Make up your mind. I mean, obviously you'd have to guess, since you didn't actually play the game, but at least pick one guess and stick to it.

Conflating two things, but i guess its my fault because i didnt differentiate. By straightforward i meant 1+1=2 and thats all there is to it.
By metagamey i meant "you better know where to apply that 2 beforehand, or you arent going to access this and losing this will snowball into lossing many other things.

Either way, theres no depth to metagaming, you know its coming, you prepare.

That makes no sense. How does something lack depth if it requires knowledge and preparation? That's basically a textbook definition of deep and complex subject - something that requires knowledge, experimentation, preparation and research until you learn all the tricks.

 

[Jason Liang]

I agree with Lhynn. All the Gods were assholes.

I don't think anyone is saying that Age of Decadence is a great rpg. It didn't even win RPGCodex GotY, like Fallout: Resurrection did last year. It's an innovative rpg with a lot of amazing work put into balancing its combat encounter design. That being said the game is saddled with atrocious flaws that break its combat system and while its story and world building are both notable, VD is not Chris Avellone and AoD is not the next Planetescape: Tournament EE.

Lhynn, the only way to really appreciate this game is to play a combat character with no weapon skills.

And don't use bolas. (I'd bet that Lhynn doesn't even know what bolas do)

 

[Lhynn]

That makes no sense. How does something lack depth if it requires knowledge and preparation? That's basically a textbook definition of deep and complex subject - something that requires knowledge, experimentation, preparation and research until you learn all the tricks.

Doesnt require knowledge and preparation, it requires metaknowledge. Theres a yuge difference.

 

[Lhynn]

And don't use bolas. (I'd bet that Lhynn doesn't even know what bolas do)

I do, almost died to them a couple times.
I thought it was odd that this world didnt have net and bolas based warfare to be honest. I would have created entire "bolas" divisions and "crossbow" divisions. and my bolas guys would absolutely destroy the enemy vanguard and then my crossbow would would rain death. This tactic in the world of AoD is 100% accurate always and works at a fairly decent range.

Like for real, i would have literally conquered the world with my bolas squad. I would call them "Boludos".

 

[Lhynn]

Antidas, Meru, Carrinas, Strabos (representing the middle class), the zealots - there is no shortage of saviors wishing to change the world for the better in AoD.

Carrinas is the only one that gives a damn, at least enough to put himself at risk.

Miltiades' offer is too good to be true, so a perception check is fitting there.

Its also largely unnnecesary, it was fairly easy to infer his motives.

I understand why you felt this way (wouldn't much of a choice otherwise) but the choice is not between loyalty to Carrinas and loyalty to the Imperial Guards. The choice is between following your orders and deciding - like many characters in AoD so you fit right in - that you know better and then dragging Carrinas into this mess, forcing him to betray his faction.

Actually i had no real orders to follow, going back to Pallus felt more like an idea. so was going to the old facility. Talking to Carrinas was just me thinking that maybe there was some content there.
Like, i went to carrinas without going to Pallus, but how you are framing it it seems you were suposed to go to Carrinas after talking to pallus and disagreeing with him on the approach or being unable to convince him?

 

[Drowed]

What's your point? That such stories are worse than other kinds of stories?

My point is exactly the opposite. That you have chosen to tell a type of story that has the consequence that the characters end up appearing generic in their behavior, and by extension, it creates a sense of sameness like we see in other types of stories. It isn't intrinsically better or worse than any generic hero story, it just ends up being generic in a different way. (Well... Which in a way is something positive, since it at least breaks the pattern.)

That always being on the other side is somehow unrealistic?

C'mon, VD. You're way better than that. I have already said several times, including in the very post that you replied to, that the question of realism is irrelevant to the point. It has nothing to do with verisimilitude.

I spent years on that side and I doubt that my experience is that unique.

You don't understand my point, or maybe you don't want to understand it? Are you going to tell me that you've never loved anyone in your life? That you have no friends? Never had friends? Never had conversations that didn't involve work? If you tell me yes, surely I will answer that, yeah, your life is really unique and I don't know anyone like you.

But I'm going to skip a lot of your answer because in the end it seems like you actually understand what I'm talking about, but for some reason you preferred to divert the conversation to a tangent talking about the realism of the characters, which is a unrelated point. Let's talk about this:

I'm reading about Albrecht von Wallenstein now. Fascinating character. From a poor nobleman (...). My point is that a story doesn't have to be 'balanced' with love and friendship if its focus isn't on life in general but on a professional career in a volatile, violent environment.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, finnaly. A story doesn't have to be balanced, but by not being like that, there is something that is lost. Reading historical books or watching documentaries about important personalities is interesting, but in a completely different way than what we see in a more personal story. A documentary isn't worse than a novel, they are distinct ways of approaching a narrative. But undoubtedly, for most people (although apparently that's not your case), it's much easier to identify with a character in a novel than in a documentary.

Your choice to create a game with an almost documentary tone that addresses only one aspect of human relationships is no better or worse than other games (which also focus on restricted aspects), but has the consequence that the characters end up being somewhat generic, reflecting only that single aspect of their lives. They end up becoming a bit shallow in a sense almost opposite to what we see in the common hero stories - and because of this, they end up giving this feeling of sameness. That is why most of them don't seem very memorable, because all we see of them is their "professional" side, some of their assholishness, it's all we can see here 'on the other side' as you've put it.

But hey, I'm not saying you need to change your style. You do you. I'm just saying that your style choices have consequences, and how the characters end up sounding generic because of that.

 

[Tigranes]

I like the fact that we have a game with a 'documentary' style (I'll just run with that classifier for now). I don't think VD would disagree that the choice of such a style has consequences and weaknesses.

The issue usually is that when people frame the complaint in terms of "all the characters are too samey" or "too generic" or "too dickish", it sounds like a complaint of realism - i.e. this is so improbable that everybody's a dick to me. Which just doesn't hold water, and isn't particularly relevant. Might as well say everybody in Celine is kind of morally pathetic.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That you have chosen to tell a type of story that has the consequence that the characters end up appearing generic in their behavior, and by extension, it creates a sense of sameness like we see in other types of stories.

Subjective? I mean I hear what you're saying but:

- I can't do better. I can improve many things on the design side, but it's safe to say that my storytelling style is set in stone at this point (on account of me being 47 and all).
- I'm well aware that you aren't alone in thinking that the characters are too generic/same, but I'm also aware that there are a lot of people who really like the characters. 20/80 I'd say.

It's easy to deal with common complaints, especially the objective ones like metagaming, not enough quests in the third city, single point of interest locations, etc. Such things aren't a matter of opinion, they are facts. It's harder to deal with subjective complaints that are a minority opinion, especially on super subjective things like storytelling and characters. I've yet to see a book that was universally praised.

I spent years on that side and I doubt that my experience is that unique.

You don't understand my point, or maybe you don't want to understand it? Are you going to tell me that you've never loved anyone in your life? That you have no friends? Never had friends? Never had conversations that didn't involve work? If you tell me yes, surely I will answer that, yeah, your life is really unique and I don't know anyone like you.

It seems we're talking about different things here. Sure, I loved and had friends but that was outside of work. So if I were to tell a story about my professional life it wouldn't have true love and lifelong friendship, which is ok because that's not what the story is about. Same here. Your character's love and personal life isn't relevant to the story and exists outside of his/her professional life/adventuring.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, finnaly. A story doesn't have to be balanced, but by not being like that, there is something that is lost. Reading historical books or watching documentaries about important personalities is interesting, but in a completely different way than what we see in a more personal story. A documentary isn't worse than a novel, they are distinct ways of approaching a narrative. But undoubtedly, for most people (although apparently that's not your case), it's much easier to identify with a character in a novel than in a documentary.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the novel should include love and friendship because that's the only way to identify with the character. Look, he loves and cares about his friends, he's just like us!

If love and friendship fit the story, great. If not, can we please focus on the relevant shit, especially in RPGs?