[DitV] Question about Relationships

[Lance D. Allen]

I think another thing to think about is that Pre-spent relationship dice is in some ways like TRoS' Spiritual Attributes, and certain similar mechanics in other games; They're a heads up to the GM that you want to see this person at least once during the course of the campaign, or that you'd like to see them again.

My two predefined relationships are with Dove's mother, and the Marshall who replaced his pa, kind of a father figure. It's a not-so-subtle hint to Lx that I'd like to see the game veer over to the non-Faithful community where his mother lives (A blooming rose in a bed of sand..). Failing that, I'd like to have them show up somewhere within a Faithful community.. Imagine if that non-Faithful TA Marshall who complicates things in some town or other just happens to be your old mentor?

Anyhow, that's my take on relationships. I'm personally missing out on the power of assigning dice during play, but I'm plenty aware of the potential of pre-assigning them.

[Eric Provost]

Allowing relationship dice to be brought into conflicts on the fly would be taking your foot off the gas.

Are you sure about that?  

*ponder*

It dosen't seem that way to me.  I mean, relationships are no heftier than other traits, right?  At least in dice.  So, would bringing up your grandfather's feelings about fighting, and how dissapointed he'd be in you be any less of a throttle killer than the trait Pacifist-2d10?  Perhaps I'm missing something in your explination.

Your relationships on the other hand, applied to sees and raises, are going to be practically all emotional and ideological. Even if the relationship's been established to be physical or violent, like "my dad (who used to kick shit out of me)," you'll be able to easily interpret it into a "just talking" see or raise.

I think I'm gonna flat out disagree with part of that.  Because, it really depends on the player dosen't it?  "My dad used to kick the crap out of me" can be used to back up shying away from combat and venting some pent-up hostility, right?  So, it all depends on what the player is looking for.   If the player is looking for an excuse to kick the shit out of someone, then they'll talk about their relationship one way.  If they're looking to talk their way out, they'll look at it another.


But...

While I disagree with Vincent's explination for why Relationships should not be used that way, I do agree that they shouldn't.  I offer a different reason.

Traits seem to define how well your character deals with certain situations.  If you have Born and Raised a Horseman -2d8, then we know you can apply your 2d8 to any situation dealing with horses, horsemen, etc.  Relationships, on the other hand, seem to define how well your character deals with certain people, sins, orginizations.  When we see My Dad -2d4, we know that when you come into conflict with your dad, trouble springs from it for you.  

My two cents

-Eric

edit:  Last thought...

So, when you define your character's Traits, you define what you want them to do.  But when you define your character's Relationships, you define who you want them to meet.

[Yokiboy]

So, when you define your character's Traits, you define what you want them to do.  But when you define your character's Relationships, you define who you want them to meet.

That's almost straight out of the rules, here's the actual game text.

Your Traits contribute to how conflicts go, but your Relationships contribute to what conflicts are about. When you take "I'm a good shot" as a Trait, you're saying that you want to resolve conflicts by shooting. When you take a Relationship with a person, you're saying that you want to be in conflict with him or her.

TTFN,

Yoki

[Eric Provost]

Heh.  Right on.  And I'm 1000 miles away from my copy.  :)

-Eric

[TonyLB]

We all carry The Book in our hearts... the Godly learn to hear the voice of the scriptures within them.

[Simon Kamber]

We all carry The Book in our hearts... the Godly learn to hear the voice of the scriptures within them.

You know, when people start saying things like that, and you know they're talking about a game, that's when it starts to get scary ;)

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

We all carry The Book in our hearts... the Godly learn to hear the voice of the scriptures within them.

... an those what don't, well, sometimes they need a shootin'.

[Mike Holmes]

When you take a Relationship with a person, you're saying that you want to be in conflict with him or her.

Sorry, Vincent, I agree with Technocrat's criticisms of your arguments.

It seems to me, very much, that this is what relationships are driving on:

When you take a Relationship with a person, you're saying that you want to be in conflict with him or her.

I think that what you're saying here, and in the last post is that you want there to be something to fight about. Is that it? Basically NPCs are supposed to represent something that's at the center conflicts, a reason to fight for something in the first place.

The thing is that my personal use seems to cover that fine. I can get a character into a fight just as easily over a dog thinking "I have to protect that dog because my dad taught me to protect animals," as I can over my dad thinking "I have to protect my dad."

Mike

[lumpley]

Bringing one relationship into a conflict isn't going to de-accelerate it any more than a trait will, no. Is that your proposed rule, that you're allowed to bring one and only one relationship into a conflict?

I understood your proposed rule to be that you're allowed to bring in every relationship that you can justify. Now do you see how that screws the tension?

And think about what it'd do in combination with "you get a free d6 relationship with your blood." Running out of dice, but don't want to punch your opponent? Think up a new cousin!

I can get a character into a fight just as easily over a dog thinking "I have to protect that dog because my dad taught me to protect animals," as I can over my dad thinking "I have to protect my dad."

"My dad taught me to protect animals" is a trait; you should list it on the left-hand side of your character sheet and spend trait dice on it. Then you can use it exactly how you did use it.

In game mechanical terms, what you're saying is that in your experience the game works if you double the number of dice you get for traits and do away with relationships altogether. I believe you; I believe that the game still works if you do that. It's not the whole game I envisioned, it's not the whole game I wrote. I'm glad you had fun.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

And think about what it'd do in combination with "you get a free d6 relationship with your blood." Running out of dice, but don't want to punch your opponent? Think up a new cousin!

I can come up with less silly ways to abuse the system if I want to. We're assuming that I'm not a silly player, right? Worst case scenario you'd have to have an accompanying rule saying that you can't create relationships in conflicts unless the individuals are present (reminds me of the "no augmenting with the infinite default 6 abilities in HQ, unless they are on the sheet).  

In game mechanical terms, what you're saying is that in your experience the game works if you double the number of dice you get for traits and do away with relationships altogether.

No, because "My dad taught me to protect animals" is not the same as having a relationsip with one's father. With the relationship to one's father, I can use that to justify anything that makes sense with it, not just protecting animals - and could only do protecting animals if it had been established or if it was a reasonable extension of the ability in question. Similar to deciding if "Run Fast" counts in a shootout.

Again, you could have both "My father taught me to protect animals" as a trait, and father as a relationship. In the right situation, I'd think that they'd both count. In others only one. They're not the same at all (to the extent that they overlap, I can give you examples ad nauseum of how traits can overlap similarly).

You've made the distinction between the types of traits, and I think that the mechanical distinctions are important. Like being able to assign them during play. I can't use unassigned relationship dice to make new traits, nor am I suggesting that it would be a good idea to allow it. But I'd like to be able to use them to make more relationships that work more like traits in some ways.

As far as this not being the game you wrote, well, I'm trying to discern your intent. Because I trust your instincts. I'm just questioning whether the mechanics (in this case the limitations on the use of relationships) match your intent. You seem to be saying that they do. So either I must be confused about the intent, or confused about the results.

Mike