DitV: Applying Relationships

[TickTock Man]

Greetings!

I have a quick question on relationships in DitV.  This is a hypothetical but could come into play depending on the feedback I receive.  Given a game of Dogs that is being played on a high-level supernatural scale, suppose a Player wants their PC to have a relationship with a Guardian Angel that appears to them in visions.  The Guardian Angel can assist them in a wide variety of areas, from hidden knowledge to interceding in dangerous times.  A player has offered this up as an idea and they swear it is not an attempt at powergaming.  I trust them, but I thought some independent feedback is in order.

Should relationship dice be rolled anytime a relationship like this might feasibly be rolled and the angel might intercede?

Should the angel perhaps be restricted to certain areas of the Dog's life?

Perhaps the angel's assistance is offset by stringent requrements on the angel's part?

Or maybe a better answer is "Supernatural relationships = a no no"?

Your thoughts are appreciated!

-Angelo

[Blankshield]

If it's a relationship, you roll those dice when you're opposing the angel, or something about the angel is what's at stake in the conflict.  Period.

What I would do, and I think is totally kosher, is just let him take a trait "I got an Angel watchin' over me: 3d8"

James

[TickTock Man]

Interesting Insight... and a good idea.  Simpler is usually better.

[cdr]

If it's a relationship, you roll those dice when you're opposing the angel, or something about the angel is what's at stake in the conflict.  Period.

Or if they come to your active aid in a conflict already underway, according to "Using Relationships" in Chapter IV, "Conflict  & Resolution."  Page 68 in 2nd edition, page 39 in Gencon 2004 edition.  I readily agree, though, that if it's some supernatural entity that comes to your aid all the time it might be better modeled as a trait.  Unless you're going to be in conflict with it a lot ("What's at stake is, do you slay the firstborn son of every family in the branch?") but even then, I don't like the idea of the GM speaking for angels, because isn't that speaking for the King of Life? (Angels being Messengers, and all), a big no-no?

I want to try running a Dog someday that has a relationship with Demons, which gives him access to the Demonic Influence dice for the asking. Sure, that makes him a sorcerer, but fight fire with fire, eye for an eye, all that good stuff.

[Nev the Deranged]

 My friend was asking about Angels and such in the DitV setting. To which I replied, "there aren't any". Nowhere in the book does it speak of Angels or any sort of direct or indirect intervention by the King of Life in any way.

 Which I think is important, because that leaves morality and judgement inescapably in the hands of the players, where it's meant to be in this game.

 If you have the supernatural stuff dialed way up, cool. But I would still hesitate to add angels in any way, not just because they represent that unwelcome intervention, but also because they don't fit the setting at all, imnsho. I don't know if angels were a big deal even in the mainstream Christian faiths back in the West... anybody know?

 But to me they just don't fit in.

 That said, it's all just my 2c. Do what feels right to your players.

[TickTock Man]

Thanks for your toughts!

It is true, there are no Angels in the Dogs setting.  For the record, we do have the supernatural dialed up pretty high, as we tend to prefer it.  We have debated establishing a realationship "King of Life" to replace the theoretical Angel relationship.  This would help handle any Divine Intervention we wanted to inject, as a counterpoint ot the demonic relationships of Sorcerers.  Nothing is set in stone yet, though.

[philaros]

But I would still hesitate to add angels in any way, not just because they represent that unwelcome intervention, but also because they don't fit the setting at all, imnsho. I don't know if angels were a big deal even in the mainstream Christian faiths back in the West... anybody know?

Well, the Mormons (LDS Church) upon whom Dogs is based believe that Joseph Smith received his revelation from angels...

[Nev the Deranged]

 Hm. Well, shows what I know. But they still don't come up in the Dogs setting, at least not officially. Then again, Vincent purposefully left the world very sketchy, so if the players want angels, then angels it is.

 Anyway they seem to have found a solution, so, wee!  Let us know how it works out.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

We have debated establishing a realationship "King of Life" to replace the theoretical Angel relationship.

That'll break the game. Don't do it. That removes moral agency from the players, and then they have nothing to do.

The angel thing is best handled as a Trait. Traits are used to confront issues. Relationships are issues.

It's more effective power gaming - which is completely legit in Dogs - to have the angel be a Trait. It's also easier and more fun.

Keep Relationships for people, actual characters. Fellow Dogs, preferably, then sinners or the victims of sin. It'll be more fun.

[lumpley]

Hey now there J. No relationship, even with God, can break the game.

Think about it. When do you get your relationship with God dice? Since we understand God as an institution, not an NPC (you're nodding agreement, right, everybody?) you get your dice for that relationship when you're in conflict with other people who also speak for God.

Totally appropriate, totally reasonable, totally not a game-breaker. Your relationship with God helps you win arguments with Stewards and Dogs. Cool. In fact, your relationship with God is mechanically identical to a relationship with the Faith - of course.

There are no angels in the game because the Dogs are the angels.

-Vincent

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

But, dig, he's talking about using the King as Divine Inspiration, as an NPC, as a deus ex machina in the most literal sense I've ever seen.

I'm stickin' by my bet that it's a deprotagonization device.

[lumpley]

As long as he sticks to the rules (and sorry for talking about you as though you weren't in the room, Angelo) but as long as he sticks to the rules, he'll be fine. Taking a relationship to the King of Life isn't against the rules; using it to get the GM's opinion about what your character should do, is. Don't do the latter, that's all.

The guardian angel trait will be more effective than the relationship with God. You'd get your guardian angel trait dice all the time, probably in every conflict. I don't have any problem with that at all - when you bring your guardian angel into a raise or see, you roll its dice, that's the rule and I stand by it.

What's at stake is: do we find out the truth about Br. Zebulon?
Your raise: my guardian angel whispers to me the truth about Br. Zebulon. [You roll its dice.]
Then I take the blow or block or whatever, no problem.

What's at stake is: does Br. Zeb gun you down in the street?
My raise: Br. Zeb guns you down! In the Street!
Your see, block or dodge: my guardian angel turns the bullets into daisies. They hit me like paff! paff! [You roll its dice.]

Totally groovy.

The relationship with a guardian angel is about the same. You'd get those dice when a) your opponent is your guardian angel; b) the guardian angel is implicated in the stakes; or c) when your guardian angel comes to your aid in the middle of a conflict. It's worth reminding everybody that rule c - when the NPC comes to your aid in the middle of the conflict - is there to replace the more general rule that'd treat the NPC as an improvised tool or weapon. I still see no problems. Sometimes you get those dice, yay!

It'd be a straightforward matter to look at the little diagrams of stewardship and decide just what a guardian angel had stewardship over. The obvious answer: the character's health, well-being, and fulfillment of her duties. Conspicuously absent: telling the character what God thinks.

Angelo! Don't sweat traits and relationships. Follow your players' lead. They know what they want - your job is to make it work. Which you can do easily, just by rolling dice or saying yes, driving play toward conflict, not playing God as an NPC, etc.

-Vincent

[Nev the Deranged]

In fact, your relationship with God is mechanically identical to a relationship with the Faith - of course.

Hm. Heavy.

There are no angels in the game because the Dogs are the angels.

Woah. Effing heavy.

I didn't see that coming. But I should have.

[TickTock Man]

I am board with Vincent on this.  The picture he paints is exactly what I am after.  If the whole thing goes wrong, then lesson learned, Glyphmonkey, and I definitely acknowledge the challenges this might cause.  for my players though, i am willing to try!

Thanks!

Angelo

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

for my players though, i am willing to try!

Rock rock on!