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

[Neal]

Okay, now I'm a little confused.  Maybe someone can help me understand the advantage of bringing an NPC in as a Relationship, as opposed to accepting help from the NPC as described under "When an NPC helps a PC" (p. 82, my edition).  It seems to me more lucrative, dicewise, to consider the NPC as joining the group (with +2d6 Stats and a Trait of at least 1d6), rather than taking the Relationship or Belonging-quality dice.  What am I missing?

[lumpley]

Well. I get 1d4 for THAT rule. Crap.

Since it's in the book, you can play by it if you want, and really I'm sure it won't do you any harm. I like the relationship-or-improvised-belonging rule better, personally.

Dammit.

-Vincent

[lumpley]

Oh, and I should maybe point out: the crap "like a group NPC" rule applies at the beginning of the conflict, when you're establishing who's on which side; you can't get the +2d6 for stats if an NPC comes into a see or raise mid-conflict.

Probably the rules don't actually overlap. If the NPC's on your side from the beginning, +2d6 for stats + a trait. If the NPC isn't on your side from the beginning, but you bring her into a raise or see, dice for relationship or as improvised.

That seems not too far out.

And also, it's a pretty dumb little technical issue without much real procedural impact. Follow your group's lead if it comes up; if it doesn't, it's not worth worrying over.

-Vincent

[Brand_Robins]

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.

So then the rule in the book should say (on page 68 of the new edition): "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. However, if the relationship unexpecedly comes to your aid in part of a raise or see, they can also be added at that point."

And or the Traits and Things section (page 63, new edition) should add a line like "You can also add Relationship dice if you raise or see with the relationship suddenly coming to your aid."

Yes, no? Because the only reason I haven't been allowing that in my games is because as the text stands it sounds like that is right out.

[lumpley]

Lord, what a mire, and to what little profit.

If I make those changes, I have to add a further proviso that you still can't roll any given set of dice more than once in a conflict, right?

Anyway has it been working out okay? Then keep doing it the way you've been doing it.

-Vincent

[Brand_Robins]

Right, right.

I'm not trying to tug your leg Vincent, just to get it clear in my own mind.

I'm mostly asking because there was a situation where this came up recently and I made an on the spot ruling that my group was quite divided over (so following the lead when 2 are on one side 2 on another, and me stuck in the middle isn't easy) -- and now I'm thinking I probably did wrong.

It's not a big deal, I'll just do it different next time. But I, and others, get things clear in our heads by discussing them. I, at least, am not trying to nitpick nor was I actually suggesting that you make a change to the book (I realize now it sounded that way, it wasn't what I was actually saying, so sorry about that). I'm just trying to be sure I understand the structural logic of the game due to that whole "rules matter" and "use the rules in the book rather than randomly changing them" thing that we get going on around here.

Clearer?

[lumpley]

Brand: ah, sure thing. Cool.

-Vincent