In this old thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10953
Vincent suggests a rule for replenishing Relationship Dice over time.
Quote from: lumpleyBetween towns, choose 3 dice, roll 'em, 1-3 you get it, as above. To be fiddled as actual play results warrant. Running out of Relationship dice means that you're dependent on these for new relationships, which means sometimes you'll have 'em and sometimes you won't. You can also rebuild slowly if for some reason you don't assign relationships in a town.
Is anyone using a rule along these lines?
If I get a campaign started, I was planning to increase everyone's starting relationship dice (with a bias towards the Community backgrounds of course), but this seems better.
I think though, the roll to get new dice should be based on starting Background Type.
If you start with 4d6 4d8 3d10 Relationships, that advantage is gone after a few towns. If you start with 3d6 4d8 3d10 Traits, that head start stays with you - you are constantly building on it.
Quote from: lumpleyI'm also going to wait on actual play before I do anything to Relationships with sin 'n' stuff.
This is something else that bothers me. I was thinking of having Group-type relationships cost 2 dice to get 1 dice. Hadn't figured out how that would work with fallout/experience-induced relationships yet.
The available relationship dice options in reflection fallout work perfectly. Read them carefully to see what I did instead of tying it to background.
Making group relationships "cost" double dice is an atrocity I can't possibly support.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpleyThe available relationship dice options in reflection fallout work perfectly. Read them carefully to see what I did instead of tying it to background.
Those options are:
- Add any two dice to your unassigned Relationship dice.
- Add 2d4 plus any one die to your unassigned Relationship dice.
- Rewrite the description of your coat to reflect damage, wear, repairs or replacement.
- Choose again from the reflection / experience Fallout list.
I might agree with you if that last option wasn't there. I'm tempted to remove that option.
[edited to add: I do like those options by the way]
But it's possible the options work well for you because, as you've said elsewhere, you don't run long campaigns. In a longer game, when the starting characters have also used up all their starting Relationship dice in towns they don't visit often, the balance of dice will shift to the trait-based characters.
QuoteMaking group relationships "cost" double dice is an atrocity I can't possibly support.
A stronger response than I expected. Why is it so horrible?
There's this thing that happens sometimes when people see Dogs. They go "holy FUCK, the characters are effective! I gotta put a stop to that! How can this possibly go well if the characters run around accomplishing all their goals all the time?"
It's nonsense. The meaning of the game, now look I'm talking about the MEANING of the game, depends on the characters being effective and accomplishing their goals. Your job as a GM isn't to keep them from accomplishing exactly what they want to accomplish, it's to design good towns and then play the townspeople fully and with passion. I promise, the Dogs can win every single conflict easily and the game still works, it's still challenging morally and it'll still engage you and your players. Losing a conflict once in a while is a spice, not a staple.
Minmaxing Dogs is playing Dogs well. Some gamers, some GMs, have a really hard time with that, and it seems that you're one of them.
-Vincent
That's absolutely true in play.
In our recent game one of the initiative achievements was "I want to make a friend at Dog School". This character had little in the way of Social niceities and was going to get buried by the GM dice.
The player found a way to escalate to Gunfighting (which she was good at) at to get enough dice in order to win.
The key thing here wasn't whether or not she COULD make a friend. Dogs have enough dice that the CAN do almost anything right from the start anyway. The key was that she was willing to kill somebodies pet dog in order to make a friend.
The system provides almost no limitation on effectiveness. Because the system isn't concerned with limiting effectiveness. The system is concerned with making the player's choose where their effectiveness comes from. When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Do your characters have a wide range of tools on their character sheet? Or do they have 1 really big hammer (like a super high gun fighting stat).
As Vincent noted earlier...the character with the super high gun fighting stat is a Dog GM's dream come true. The question isn't "how good is he with a gun". The question is "given that so much of his character's effectiveness is tied up in that gun, how often will he use it" i.e. at what point do all the innocent townfolk start looking like nails to him.
That's why doubling the cost of relationship dice as a way of limiting effectiveness is an abomination in this game. You WANT the players to have that kind of effectivness at their disposal.
Quote from: lumpleyThere's this thing that happens sometimes when people see Dogs. They go "holy FUCK, the characters are effective! I gotta put a stop to that! How can this possibly go well if the characters run around accomplishing all their goals all the time?"
Quite possibly they do. I'm just posting to point out that it's not my worry. I routinely run games where the players are pretty much the most powerful people around, and where what they choose to do, not whether they succeed or not, is the driving force of the game. So that's not my concern.
My concern is the rate of chance of characters. But I've rambled enough about that, so I'll shut up now :)
Quote from: ValamirThat's why doubling the cost of relationship dice as a way of limiting effectiveness is an abomination in this game. You WANT the players to have that kind of effectivness at their disposal.
Alright, what about this.
You put 1 die in Group relationship, you get 1 die.
You put 1 die in a Single relationship, you get 2 dice (or 2 single relationships at 1 die).
This actually is more appealing, now that I think about it.
Does this change the objections?
Honestly, I'm not bothered about limiting effectiveness at all. What I'm trying to do is make each option equally attractive.
Perhaps I'm missing something. By "groups" do you mean institutions, like the Faith or the Dogs? p40 in "Conflict & Resolution" points out that you only use relationship dice with an institution if your opponent is a person with authority in the institution or what's at stake is your status with regard to the institution. It's not like a person where you get the dice when they're your opponent, or they're what's at stake, or when they come to your active aid in a conflict.
So if you're planning to lay a lot of smackdown on Stewards, then taking dice in a relationship with the Faith makes a lot of sense (and seems fine to me, because its telling the GM you want a lot of conflict with people in authority in the Faith). But I don't see why that would need to cost more than a relationship with anything else?
Quote from: cdrPerhaps I'm missing something. By "groups" do you mean institutions, like the Faith or the Dogs?
I mean any relationship that can be recurring across multiple towns without needing a single NPC to be present. Insititutions, Sins, even Demons (it may be the same demon, but it's always available).
Quotep40 in "Conflict & Resolution" points out that you only use relationship dice with an institution if your opponent is a person with authority in the institution or what's at stake is your status with regard to the institution.
This does bring to mind a question I had forgotten about.
In character design, you must have a Trait along the lines of "I'm a Dog," or take a relationship with the Dogs.
If you take a Relationship with the Dogs, when can you use it, because that "what's at stake is your status with regard to the institution" is not clear to me.
Could you use it in any case where you are attempting to solve the problems of a town - because if you don't succeed, your status with regard to the institution might well be compromised.
Or, is it much more specific - you can only use it when you are attempting to prove something to your superiors, for instance? But that doesn't seem right given the premise of the game: Dogs don't really answer to anyone else.
Confused...
You can take a Relationship with an institution like Faith or Dogs, and probably Territorial Authority.
Could you take a Relationship with, say, "Outlaws"?
What about (different question) "the McMurdough Gang"?
Or would these be taken as Traits instead?
I hate to tell you this, but the answer is to take traits and relationships that make sense to you. Tell your players to take traits and relationships that make sense to them.
Can you? Would you? Do you? Hell I don't know. Write down words that make sense and that everybody knows what you mean.
Screwing around with making some relationships "cost" more than others is a terrible idea. It's a throwback to a really stupid and outmoded - or at least incompatible with Dogs - approach to RPG design.
If your group decides that "obviously" group relationships are better than individual relationships, then I guess that means that everyone in your group should take only group relationships. That doesn't bother me a bit, it shouldn't bother you either.
-Vincent
Quote from: demiurgeastarothYou put 1 die in Group relationship, you get 1 die.
You put 1 die in a Single relationship, you get 2 dice (or 2 single relationships at 1 die).
...What I'm trying to do is make each option equally attractive.
A Relationship with Farmers is pretty useful. A relationship with Farmer Ted, taken the moment you draw on him, is
really useful - for a minute.
They overlap, you dig.
Relationships:
Dogs: 6d4 (I didn't want to join)
Sr. Watchdog Rebekah: 4d10 (I'm in love with her)
There! You've got stuff to fight about! That's what relationships are for.
Why is it better to make Rebekah worth more dice than Dogs?
There's a couple of questions here that haven't yet been answered.
1. Institution Relationships:
The term 'institution' (and examples in text: Dogs, Faith) suggest to me actual, formalised institutions.
Can this kind of relationship apply to loose groups, such as "Outlaws" or (nikola's example) "Farmers".
2. With a Relationship with the Dogs, you can use it "when what's at stake is your status with regard to the institution". I may be being dense, but I'm not clear what that means. To help me see, can someone suggest three different examples of this?
Quote from: nikolaA Relationship with Farmers is pretty useful. A relationship with Farmer Ted, taken the moment you draw on him, is really useful - for a minute.
But less useful than a Relationship with Farmers. :)
I'm happy to let this point drop though. I'm not going to see eye to eye with you, and that's okay.
I think perhaps that the point is that it really dosen't matter if the relationship with Farmer Ted is more or less useful than a relationship with Farmers as a whole. What does matter is that your choice of relationships tells us all about who you want your character to get into conflicts with. If you take the broad scope of Farmers, then we know that you don't care which farmer you get into conflict with, you just want to get into conflict with farmers. On the other hand, if you just have Farmer Ted as your relation, then we know that you're specifically interested in conflicting with or about Farmer Ted. It's not the power of your character that's important, it what you're telling us about your character that is.
-Eric
Quote from: Technocrat13I think perhaps that the point is that it really dosen't matter if the relationship with Farmer Ted is more or less useful than a relationship with Farmers as a whole. What does matter is that your choice of relationships tells us all about who you want your character to get into conflicts with. If you take the broad scope of Farmers, then we know that you don't care which farmer you get into conflict with, you just want to get into conflict with farmers. On the other hand, if you just have Farmer Ted as your relation, then we know that you're specifically interested in conflicting with or about Farmer Ted. It's not the power of your character that's important, it what you're telling us about your character that is.
-Eric
Let's say the rule was:
-you can take a relationship with Farmer Ted at 2d4
-you can take a relationship with Farmers at 1d4.
The player then chooses. When the player picks, how does this lead to a less interesting, less satisfying game?
You might argue - the player might take the Farmer Ted relationship because he is influenced by power, and that's not what we want to see.
But in the standard rule, that same situation exists (they could always take the group-type relationship instead), I've just turned it around in this example. In this version, it's mitigated a little bit by the (probably) temporary nature of Ted.
But you could avoid that, too, by changing the rule to:
-you can take a relationship with Farmer Ted at 2d4
-you can take a relationship with Farmer Ted at 1d4
-you can take a relationship with Farmers at 1d4.
This achieves the same effect.
3 examples:
What's at stake is, does she talk you into betraying your fellow Dogs?
What's at stake is, does the steward recognize your authority?
What's at stake is, does she acknowledge you to be as good a Dog as she was?
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpley3 examples:
What's at stake is, does she talk you into betraying your fellow Dogs?
What's at stake is, does the steward recognize your authority?
What's at stake is, does she acknowledge you to be as good a Dog as she was?
-Vincent
Aaaaah :)
Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer.
What about farmers/outlaws/etc.?
I think that you're making a poor assumption; That Ted is temporary. If I have Ted on my sheet, that means I'm telling you that I want to get into conflicts with Ted. Not once. Not a couple times. Over and over. Ted is central to my story. That's why I put him there.
Therefore, a Relationship of Ted 1d6 is no more or less powerful than a relationship of Farmers 1d6.
-Eric
... well, the point is that they're not mutually exclusive, that you can take (and lose) relationships at will.
Take the relationships you want. That way, what you fight over and with is mechanically supported. If relationships with groups are penalized, it means the players can't direct the conflicts with groups as well as they can with individuals. Why do that?
(Edit: this was in response to something hours ago. I went to see Hitchhiker's Guide and then submitted. Now there's more posts!)
Why don't you just let your players choose what they want?
Darren, did you read what I wrote above?
If you can't figure it out, it's easy, just don't write it on your character sheet.
All these questions you're asking us, they're questions for your group. They aren't even questions to ask out loud, they're questions to have in mind and observe how your group instinctively answers them. This is in the rules! Start play with an open mind and an open heart, and follow your group's lead.
Introduce the rules, clearly, fully, but neutrally, and whatever relationships they choose, those are the relationships they want. Badgering us for what we think and how we justify things gives you absolutely zero useful information.
We can't help you. You're asking us to do your group's work.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpley
All these questions you're asking us, they're questions for your group.
I have one outstanding question, which is specifically a question about "what was the designers intention". You can answer it or not, I'll stop badgering you after that.
With institutions, are they meant to be formal institutions (like governments, religions, military forces, police forces) or can Institution Relationships also be used for more general types of characters (outlaws, farmers, traders, etc.)?
I know I can (and will) make this decision myself, but I'd like to know what the designers intention was.
Quote from: demiurgeastarothWith institutions, are they meant to be formal institutions (like governments, religions, military forces, police forces) or can Institution Relationships also be used for more general types of characters (outlaws, farmers, traders, etc.)?
Why would it be that? Formal institutions are exactly the same as any other group except that lots of people think they all think the same thing about them (they're probably wrong).
Relationships I've seen:
Farmers
Dogs
Women
Demons
Sinners
The TA
Quote from: nikolaWhy would it be that? Formal institutions are exactly the same as any other group except that lots of people think they all think the same thing about them (they're probably wrong).
I was getting hung up on the word Institution. There seemed to be a couple of valid interpretations of it in this context (the two I mentioned).
I like you example "Sinners" :)
Oh. Yeah, an institution explicitly has some kind of authority structure to it. You can't take a relationship to "farmers" or "outlaws," although you certainly can to a particular outlaw gang or, I dunno, farmers' collective or something. You get the dice when you're in conflict with an authority in the institution, not just any ol' anybody in it.
That's page ... 40 of the GenCon edition, must be 42 or 43 of the first edition.
-Vincent
Quote from: lumpleyOh. Yeah, an institution explicitly has some kind of authority structure to it. You can't take a relationship to "farmers" or "outlaws," although you certainly can to a particular outlaw gang or, I dunno, farmers' collective or something. You get the dice when you're in conflict with an authority in the institution, not just any ol' anybody in it.
What the crap? Why? What's the difference? Now that I've disparaged someone else's question about that, I have to know!
Toshiro Mifune's character, "Kikuchiyo", in Seven Samurai says "I hate farmers!" His whole deal is trying to be a non-farmer, trying to be in control of his fate, not be pathetic, as a farmer must be.
Quote from: lumpleyOh. Yeah, an institution explicitly has some kind of authority structure to it. You can't take a relationship to "farmers" or "outlaws," although you certainly can to a particular outlaw gang or, I dunno, farmers' collective or something. You get the dice when you're in conflict with an authority in the institution, not just any ol' anybody in it.
Right, thanks.
So something generic like "I hate outlaws" would be okay to have, as long as it was a Trait and not a Relationship?
Josh, I actually think I get the distinction there. Kikuchiyo has opinions about farmers, but stakes about Kambei.
Stakes of "Do I win a duel in front of these farmers" are not more charged for him. Stakes of "Do I win a duel in front of Kambei" would be. Relationships are not the same as Traits... they're not the opinions and abilities you bring to the conflict, they are your personal reason for being in the conflict. They're the people who are going to judge you, based on what you do.
That having been said... I could see "farmers" as a relationship. But taking it as a relationship implies that farmers respond to your character as a whole. If you pissed off the farmers in the last town, the farmers in the next town are pissed off at you. The judgment they levelled last town has to be permanent... it's part of the ongoing relationship.
Vincent: Is that the same distinction as institutions? Or something else? Or have I got it completely turned 'round?
If a player wants to take a relationship with a group rather than an individual, that's fine with me. If it's a positive relationship, he's going to be getting dragged into that group's struggles more often. That could be bad for him, or could lead to some good drama. If it's negative, he's going to be up against the whole damn group. Good for him!
On the other hand, taking a relationship with an individual might seem more narrow, but it makes things more personal. You're not just an enemy of the nasty Rail Company, you've got a personal vendetta against Lionel Armstrong, the corrupt and brutal strongman who enforces the will of his employers Back East. Or you're not just friends with the Great Elk tribe of Mountain People, but a personal friend of Chief Ma-Tai-Ha, who considers you to be the one Faithful he can trust. Which relationship would you prefer?
That's why I'm okay with Relationship dice having the same value for Groups as well as Individuals.
We've wandered into something really interesting here. Mostly because I love Seven Samurai so much.
Quote from: TonyLBJosh, I actually think I get the distinction there. Kikuchiyo has opinions about farmers, but stakes about Kambei.
Stakes of "Do I win a duel in front of these farmers" are not more charged for him. Stakes of "Do I win a duel in front of Kambei" would be.
He has direct conflicts with those farmers, and his experiences (were they not fatal) with these farmers would effect later experiences with farmers at least as much as interactions with Samurai. (this is muddied by the fact that Farmers and Samurai are formal institutions in that place and time).
He calls out the farmers at the beginning of Act 2 to embarrass them because a) it's something that shows the Samurai that he knows what he's doing and b) it gives him an opportunity to show the Farmers that he knows their deal. He just has a relationship with both.
QuoteRelationships are not the same as Traits... they're not the opinions and abilities you bring to the conflict, they are your personal reason for being in the conflict. They're the people who are going to judge you, based on what you do.
Why do you think "Kikuchiyo" wanted to come along? Sure, he wanted to show the Samurai that he was a badass, that he could hang with them. But he went to a
farming village to show them. He knew where they were going. Were I playing Kikuchiyo, I'd be saying to the other players, "I'm suppressing my empathy for the farmers' plight. I don't even know that's why I'm doing this."
QuoteThat having been said... I could see "farmers" as a relationship. But taking it as a relationship implies that farmers respond to your character as a whole. If you pissed off the farmers in the last town, the farmers in the next town are pissed off at you. The judgment they levelled last town has to be permanent... it's part of the ongoing relationship.
I dunno, Tony. I'm going to
act like those farmers are someone I know.
QuoteVincent: Is that the same distinction as institutions? Or something else? Or have I got it completely turned 'round?
Yeah, and Vincent, it was
you who suggested Relationship: Women as fallout for Frank Redboots. Tony, you were there, actually. If I recall, I chose a Trait, something like "Nothin' wrong with rapin' demons" or some such twist of morality because that's where I wanted to take the character. But
you suggested it, and I think it's interesting. It would effect every interaction I had with women from there out.
I totally agree that you're going to act like the farmers are someone you know. But you're going to be very surprised if they act like you're someone they know. Right?
I totally get that the relationship with farmers changes the way Kikuchiyo views farmers. But I don't see that it changes the way farmers view Kikuchiyo. The farmers don't think that he has anything special to prove to them, so they don't have a good context to put him under social pressure. They're not judging him more intensely than other samurai.
I've played it exactly the way you're talking about. In fact, I assumed (prior to Vincent's clarification) that that's how it was meant to be played. But I think I see the attraction of personalizing it to either a person or institution.
If you have "Mountain Folk 2d8" and you go to a new village, you can make the Stakes "Do the Mountain Folk accept me." Which is fine.
If you have "Chief Ma-ha-tai 2d8" and you go to a new village you make the Stakes "Do the Mountain Folk accept me as a friend of Ma-ha-tai, whom they know." I think that's better.
What you've done, right in that rewording, is to set the basis for how these people judge you and relate to you. It's not for your benefit... it's for theirs. It helps (in this case) the GM to know how you want these people to think about you.
Quote from: TonyLBI totally agree that you're going to act like the farmers are someone you know. But you're going to be very surprised if they act like you're someone they know. Right?...I've played it exactly the way you're talking about. In fact, I assumed (prior to Vincent's clarification) that that's how it was meant to be played. But I think I see the attraction of personalizing it to either a person or institution....What you've done, right in that rewording, is to set the basis for how these people judge you and relate to you. It's not for your benefit... it's for theirs. It helps (in this case) the GM to know how you want these people to think about you.
This has gotten very fuzzy to me. Tony, I think you're probably right about the direction of the relationship, but I want to hear it from Vincent (who's also not responding to a PM about tomorrow's plans - read your email, dammit!)
Quote from: nikolaYeah, and Vincent, it was you who suggested Relationship: Women as fallout for Frank Redboots.
And in this we see the difference between the designer's intent and playing with an open mind and an open heart.
It's all cool. You're supposed to make up traits and relationships that make sense to you and your group, in play.
-Vincent
The ultimate answer to this entire thread...and indeed many of the recent threads is simply this...
...ask yourself "why does it matter?"
If the answer is any of the following (or similiar):
"I want to know what the 'right' way of doing it is"
"I want to make sure the dice are fair"
"I'm worried the character's may be too effective"
"I'm concerned about balance among the characters"
"I'm concerned about balance with the NPCs"
"I'm concerned the Dogs may have too easy a time"
"I'm concerned the Dogs may have too hard a time"
"My players are going to try to min max"
Then the answer to the question is "it doesn't matter, because none of those questions are relevant...certainly not to Dogs, and also not to most other RPGs (even though we often think otherwise)".
The solution when an issue like this comes up is always "Choose the option that makes the most sense to you and your group at that point in time in that set of circumstances."
Now if you can answer the "why does it matter?" question with something more meaningful than any of the above...then it is something worth thinking about. The solution to it will almost always be...you guessed it..."Choose the option that makes the most sense to you and your group at that point in time in that set of circumstances."
In other words...just play...respect each other...make judgements when necessary. Good sound advice for any game session me thinks, no?
I think that something about long-term play is being missed here.
The answer to all of your questions is: Take enough Fallout, and you can have any relationship or trait you want at any value you want.
Play one or two towns, and you will understand this at a deep, intuitive level. All of your "farmer ted versus family of farmer ted" questions will vanish like dew under dawnlight.
yrs--
--Ben