[DitV] "Relationships Determine What Conflicts Will Be About"

[Neal]

Fred, while I have yet to play the game (tomorrow is DitV-Day), what you describe just rubs me the wrong way.  I might consider letting a player assign relationship dice to an opponent after a conflict, maybe even between a conflict and its follow-up, and it's certainly kosher to assign those dice prior to a conflict, but not in the middle of a conflict.  And certainly not because the player is "desperate for more dice."  I can't think of anything that more clearly violates the spirit of the game, as I understand it.

[lumpley]

Actually, taking a relationship to your opponent in the middle of a conflict because you need the dice is completely kosher. Doesn't hurt the game a bit.

In the middle of conflicts, I often say, "well, are you going to give, shoot her, or take a relationship with her?"

-Vincent

[James Holloway]

  I can't think of anything that more clearly violates the spirit of the game, as I understand it.

Vincent already addressed that this doesn't violate the spirit of the game, but I recommend you to the the section "Timing New Relationships" on p. 42 of the first edition rules for rules text that explicitly allow this.

[Josh Roby]

I can't think of anything that more clearly violates the spirit of the game, as I understand it.

It allows the players to make a pretty powerful statement about what's important to their characters.  Sounds perfectly in-line with the spirit of the game to me.

[Neal]

James, thanks for the pointer.  I had read that section (p. 41 in my edition) not an hour before posting, and then forgotten it, probably because I was focusing on p. 39: "Because rolling your character's relationship depends on who your character's opponent is and what's at stake, you'll roll them at the beginning of the conflict, with your Stats."  I guess I'll have to wait and see how this sort of thing takes shape in actual play.  I suppose the dividing line between "making a powerful statement about my character" and "tossing some extra dice on the table because I like to win" will depend on how the player describes his end of the conflict.

[Brand_Robins]

Neal,

There is also an issue to consider in the "what it is about" section of relationships and conflicts.

If you have an established relationship going into a conflict, then for the conflict to be about it you must introduce it on the way in. If this is about your dad, you know it is about your dad going in and have to state it there. (If it becomes about your dad later its probably something to pick up in a followup conflict.)

If, otoh, you are in a conflict and suddenly develop a relationship to the person you are in the conflict with then there is a real way in which this conflict has become about that relationship -- because it was the conflict that formed that relationship. If you suddenly get "Hates Brand Robins 2d8" in the middle of this discussion, then there is a real way in which the point of the discussion (from a dramatic PoV) was about you learning to hate me.

A conflict that generates a new relationship is thus prime material for the relationship to be added into, because the conflict is about the formation of that relationship and the relationship is about that conflict. The whole "what it is about" segement thus comes full circle and works perfectly.

[Neal]

Brand, I think there's a lot of sense in what you're saying, now that you put it that way.  I think I needed that phrasing to make the Relationships-in-mid-conflict thing sound like something other than dicemonkeys running amok.  It even sounds pretty liberating, especially when you consider that those new conflict-spawned Relationships don't have to be limited to hatred.  Ex. "I know Sister Jaelle's views are wrong -- really, really wrong -- but I can't help it; I find her incredibly exciting: 1d8."

I guess what was hanging me up was the notion that a conflict seemed to call for Relationships to be on the table at the outset, a part of "what's at stake."  I think I may have been reading the rules backwards, if that makes sense.  For a Relationship to come into play during combat, it has to be either "what's at stake" or the opposition.  This seems to be what you're saying in your second paragraph.  At the outset, the conflict is either about/against your dad, or it's not.  But I guess that doesn't preclude conflict from spawning new Relationships on the fly.

What you're describing in the third paragraph (the conflict that generates a new Relationship) brings up a conceptual problem I think I may be (or have been) having, and that is the difference between "what it's about" and "what's at stake."  Looking at what I've written above, I think that's just something I'll have to work out as I play the game.  From where I am now, it seems to me I've folded the two together.  If I'm right, you're saying they're not necessarily the same thing.  If so, that does make sense.  My character's attempt to save the little brown-haired girl from drowning might not be about the girl, the river, or any of that; it might be about his own fear of water.  Once he gets into the water and fights the current, he might develop a sudden relationship with this particular river, or with the little brown-haired girl, as his struggle takes on new intensity.  Does that sound like what you're describing?

[Brand_Robins]

What you're describing in the third paragraph (the conflict that generates a new Relationship) brings up a conceptual problem I think I may be (or have been) having, and that is the difference between "what it's about" and "what's at stake."  Looking at what I've written above, I think that's just something I'll have to work out as I play the game.  From where I am now, it seems to me I've folded the two together.  If I'm right, you're saying they're not necessarily the same thing.  If so, that does make sense.  My character's attempt to save the little brown-haired girl from drowning might not be about the girl, the river, or any of that; it might be about his own fear of water.  Once he gets into the water and fights the current, he might develop a sudden relationship with this particular river, or with the little brown-haired girl, as his struggle takes on new intensity.  Does that sound like what you're describing?

Yes. I think.

The stakes of a conflict are what you're trying to do. What it is about is why you are doing it, or at least why you are doing it the way you are doing it. So you can have stakes of "I kill this guy" but what killing him is about can be any number of things. If its got a relationship that is "I hate this guy" then it is about one thing, but if it is with a relationship of "I love this guy" it is something very different. (And yet again if you have no relationship at all to the human being with a life and family that you are putting on his knees and shooting in the head, and kill without direct relationships at all.)

That's how I read it, anyway. Vincent may tell you I'm wrong. If so, listen to him.

[Karasu]

By the rules, which are quite clearly stated, a relationship with a person is only relevant in certain circumstances, and "because they might hear about my deeds" is not one of them.
However, players do have the power to bring any relationship into any conflict, by describing as part of a Raise or See how they are suddenly physically present and helping. This might stretch credibility if done too often, or not - depending on the game and situation.

If players want a relationship to "Sister Maria, a sexual abuse victim over there," and want to use this with any sexual abuse victim they encounter, they can take this as a Trait, not a Relationship.

Just to make sure I'm clear on this. So it's the difference between taking the Relationship "Sister Maria, who was sexually abused in Sweet Water" and the Trait "I won't let anyone else suffer like Sister Maria"? The first could only be drawn upon for dice if Sister Maria is at stake or if she's the opponent. The second, however, could be used in a conflict to help prevent someone from being subjected to a fate, correct?

[Josh Roby]

The stakes of a conflict are what you're trying to do. What it is about is why you are doing it, or at least why you are doing it the way you are doing it.

Might I suggest some pronoun disambiguation:

The stakes of a conflict are what THE CHARACTER is trying to do.  What it is about is why THE PLAYER is directing the character to do it, or at least why THE PLAYER is directing the character to do it in the way the character is doing it.

[Neal]

The stakes of a conflict are what THE CHARACTER is trying to do.  What it is about is why THE PLAYER is directing the character to do it, or at least why THE PLAYER is directing the character to do it in the way the character is doing it.

This helps, though I hope I'm not sounding snarky in bringing up the idea that "what's (literally) at stake" is not always "what the character is (really) trying to do."  Just based on my pre-play understanding, I might say "What's at stake is what hangs on the outcome of the conflict, in concrete terms, here and now."  But I think the point is made, all quibbles notwithstanding.  What's at stake belongs in the Character's world; what it's about belongs in the Player's world.

[Neal]

Just to make sure I'm clear on this. So it's the difference between taking the Relationship "Sister Maria, who was sexually abused in Sweet Water" and the Trait "I won't let anyone else suffer like Sister Maria"? The first could only be drawn upon for dice if Sister Maria is at stake or if she's the opponent. The second, however, could be used in a conflict to help prevent someone from being subjected to a fate, correct?

With all due respect to Darren, I think I'd allow it as a Relationship with Sexual Abuse, as a Sin.  It makes perfect sense as a Trait, of course, but I think it could work as a Relationship as well.  In keeping with what I've read here and in the rulebook, the acid test seems to be what is most important to the character.  If it's Sister Maria, then you have a Relationship with Sister Maria.  If it's a resolve never to let anyone suffer that way again, it's a Trait.  If it's a commitment to stop the sin itself, again, it could be a Relationship with that Sin.  In choosing that last path, the player is making a statement like, "My character has come to view Sexual Abuse as a personal affront, and something that must be fought."  If the player anthropomorphizes the sin, then there shouldn't be a problem with forming a Relationship with it.

Mechanically, then, the Relationship and the Trait would work about the same way, I think.  But the choice which slot to drop it into says something about the character.  Traits seem often more inward, Relationships more outward.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's what I'm picking up.

[Darren Hill]

With all due respect to Darren, I think I'd allow it as a Relationship with Sexual Abuse, as a Sin.  It makes perfect sense as a Trait, of course, but I think it could work as a Relationship as well.  In keeping with what I've read here and in the rulebook, the acid test seems to be what is most important to the character.  If it's Sister Maria, then you have a Relationship with Sister Maria.  If it's a resolve never to let anyone suffer that way again, it's a Trait.  If it's a commitment to stop the sin itself, again, it could be a Relationship with that Sin.  In choosing that last path, the player is making a statement like, "My character has come to view Sexual Abuse as a personal affront, and something that must be fought."  If the player anthropomorphizes the sin, then there shouldn't be a problem with forming a Relationship with it.

As it happens, Neal, that's pretty much how I see it too. But pay careful attention to the situations where you get to use a Relationship with a Sin or an Institution - there are subtle differences between each, and between them and Traits.

Mechanically, then, the Relationship and the Trait would work about the same way, I think.  But the choice which slot to drop it into says something about the character.  Traits seem often more inward, Relationships more outward.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's what I'm picking up.

Traits don't have to be inward. For example, I think the following is kosher (or whatever the Mormon word is for acceptable food intake):
"It starts to rain, 1d8"
Vincent, please, please, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you can have traits which are anything at all, even things that aren't in any way related to your character - "It falls silent, and tumbleweed rolls across my path, 1d6" is a trait one of my players took.
So a working definition of Traits would be, exactly, "things which, when I incorporate in a Raise or See, give me extra dice." That's it - they aren't internal, they aren't external.
Relationships are quite different.

However, it was earlier said that Relationships must be rolled at the start of the a conflict unless created during the conflict. This is simply not the case.
Look at the list of situations where you can use a Relationship. Number 3 is, when the relationship comes to my active aid in a conflict.
You often can't know at the start of a conflict if that will certainly happen.
Let's say you have a relationship with the Sheriff and want to have him help you during that conflict, so you roll the dice at the start. But then, two raises in, the conflict ends - and you never got the opportunity to narrate his coming to help you. So you shouldn't have got those dice.
You only roll dice for relationships at the start of a conflict in the other two cases (when the relationship is part of the stakes, for example). For that active aid clause, it should be rolled during the conflict, just like a Belonging or Trait. (And possibly along with it - you could have a Relationship with your Horse, for example, and that horse is also a Belonging. It doesn't make a lot of sense to roll the Relationship die for that horse at the start, and the Belonging dice later. You'd only roll the relationship at the start if the conflict was about the horse.)

Furthermore, if the relationship is not present, if the relationship was last seen in another town, you can, as part of a raise or see, roll that relationship's dice and state how that relationship suddenly, here and now, actively comes to your aid.
As with trait use, the group has to come to some consensus over how frequently to pull this stunt is too frequent, but it's a legitimate tactic. The time and space tricks you can play with DitV conflict can easily justify stuff that would be beyond the pale in many other games.

[lumpley]

This is important. This is how the "a relationship comes to your active aid" rule really works.

If you bring an NPC into a raise or see, and you don't have a relationship with the NPC, you get dice as though the NPC were an improvised belonging. d4 if he's crap, 2d8 if he's big plus quality. Right?

If you bring an NPC into a raise or see, and you DO have a relationship with the NPC, you get your relationship dice instead.

In MY game, if you have a big plus quality cousin, and you haven't assigned relationship dice to her, you get the d6 for blood, NOT the 2d8 for big plus quality. Similarly, even if your cousin's crap, you get the d6 for blood, not the d4. Having a cousin come to your aid is automatically different from having a stranger come to your aid.

In YOUR game, feel free to get whichever dice are better, if that's how you'd rather play it.

Now, say I have a relationship with a sin, let's say whorin'. Can whorin' come to my active aid in a conflict? Maaaaybe. Clearly, that'd mean that I brought it concretely into a raise or a see - and if I can figure out how to do that, more power (more dice) to me.

-Vincent

[jrs]

If you bring an NPC into a raise or see, and you don't have a relationship with the NPC, you get dice as though the NPC were an improvised belonging. d4 if he's crap, 2d8 if he's big plus quality. Right?

Damn.  We could have used that last Saturday in our Dogs game.  We were even talking about a particular NPC as furniture and not as an active participant during a conflict.  I wasn't thinking about the potential of using him as an improvised belonging.  That could have been interesting, a crap town stewart.  Next time.

Julie