I think that's a good set of guidelines, definitely. One slight tweak: I suggest the goal shouldn't be for characters to make the 'smartest' decision they can as much as they should make the 'best' decision they can. You can get a lot of mileage out of characters making objectively foolish decisions as long we we understand why they're doing it and sympathize with their reasons (even if we ultimately disagree).
Sorry. Guess I should have unpacked what I meant by "smartest" and "they know how to."
I phrased it this way very specifically to avoid a number of writing mistakes I personally am particularly prone to:
These writing goals often conflict. But because I'm forced to choose between "character be smart," "character show flaws," and "character be unique," there's basically
no way to do it wrong, even when I'm actively nudging them towards the plot. Erring
in any one of these directions enhances character likeability.
The only risk is recurring villains might start to look too cool, and I'll be forced to make them kill a dog or crush the woobie's dreams or something, just to keep the audience from sympathizing with them. We want them squarely in "love to hate" territory.
That said, I'm reminded of
Bare Witness which has a 'mini-harem' in the MASH path. It did a pretty good job with all your points (there was a notable lie of omission by the MC, but it's quickly forgiven), and it put in a lot of work fleshing out the character dynamics within the harem (which was great). But it still ran into problems in my eyes because of the way the harem path upstaged the non-harem paths for those girls. It wasn't just that the harem path got more content, it's that the solo paths felt truncated. The MC didn't have anything to do with the girls individually because nearly all their content expected them to be in the harem. [Technically, Athena and Heidi did have some memorable unique content if you insisted on splitting them up and dating them solo (though it made you feel like a heartless monster). The problem here was that the H/A throuple felt truncated because, again, it was supposed to be expanded.]
Personally, I would probably
try to give each LI their own route with the MC before the harem starts to gel, because that's part of the whole process of building appeal. I can see how economic decisions about what's worth developing would come into play, especially in an economy like Patreon where only a few players' opinions "count" because they vote with their wallets. I'd try to avoid this fate, but it might not be easy to do so
systemically. Maybe choosing the right backer goals is the best way.
I guess what I'm saying is that even following those rules doesn't necessarily ensure the audience will buy into the big orgy. I think you also need to be careful to show how the girls aren't just pieces in a harem-shaped puzzle. You can be heavy handed and either give the player no option to romance the girls individually - or even show how the other girls' lives will be ruined without the harem (that's kind of what the solo-Heidi or solo-Athena paths did in BW). But I think the much better option is to give the girls happy solo paths, just contrast that happiness with the happiness they find in the harem route to show how it meets the girls' needs differently.
A Summer's End did something similar if you refuse to end up with the chosen LI: Sam and Michele can still find happiness with new partners, it just won't be the same as if they get together. Sure, our sympathies are obviously with the couple we've spent the game watching, but we don't need to treat the alternative as a non-standard game over.
Nothing wrong with making the harem ending optional. Though executing that may require explicitly choosing characters' names off a list at some point, even if it's couched in things like who to listen to first or whose plan to agree with. But at that point, it becomes a problem of ludonarrative dissonance, not narrative structure.
I'm going to be honest, the route you describe from A Summer's End sounds like more effort than I'd probably put in to detailing that particular part of the world. Do I really want to design
two whole new characters, including giving them enough appeal that it makes sense they could woo two of the LIs, just so the player knows who their
ex hooked up with? I might be oversimplifying your description in my head, though.
Maybe the fix is to just have LIs hook up with other LIs, in the specific case where the player picks a monogamy route.
If only the Bulletproof Harem were designed to facilitate that sort of thing. Oh wait. It is.
To bring this back towards the theoretical topic, I think you need to keep the story in mind. If the harem IS the story, people skeptical of harems probably aren't going to like it no matter how well you tell it. If the story is about something else - even something closely related, the way ASE is about Michele deciding what she wants out of life rather than just about her encounter with Sam - then you'll have a lot more latitude when it comes to selling the harem.
The harem isn't the story, it's just the dessert. The meat and potatoes is the external conflict. That's why I demand an A-plot with characters solving a group problem. Ostensibly, that's what the story is about. The purpose of the Bulletproof Harem is just to make the dessert pair naturally with the main course.
Viewed through that lens, though, I now realize that the initial write-up was one very obtuse implementation of the more general, more compact principles
presented previously. It focused on making the story
all about building the harem, and that's just overkill.
Then again, maybe people like me are inevitably the portion of the Venn diagram outside the harem circle and you should stop worrying about us.
Don't worry. I'm not doing it for you. And I'm certainly not doing it for Screedy McBodyBags, up there. I'm doing it for me.
Well... for me, and perhaps also for
You must be registered to see the links
who helped inspire the whole train of thot.