[DitV] Relationship Dice

[Darren Hill]

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

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.

[lumpley]

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

[Darren Hill]

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

Aaaaah :)
Thanks, that makes it a lot clearer.
What about farmers/outlaws/etc.?

[Eric Provost]

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

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

... 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?

[lumpley]

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

[Darren Hill]

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.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

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.)?

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

[Darren Hill]

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).

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" :)

[lumpley]

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

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

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.

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.

[Darren Hill]

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.

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?

[TonyLB]

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?

[ptikachu]

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.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

We've wandered into something really interesting here. Mostly because I love Seven Samurai so much.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

I dunno, Tony. I'm going to act like those farmers are someone I know.

Vincent:  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.