useless relationships?

[Adam Biltcliffe]

So, one of my players' characters has a relationship with her dead brother. She reckons this is important, and it certainly seems right to me that it should be down on the character sheet.

But it's useless, right? He's dead, so he can never be her opponent in a conflict, or come to her aid (well, probably). And he can never be at stake, unless I guess someone's trying to soil his memory or something, which might count.

Should players just not take relationships with anyone they couldn't plausibly encounter on their travels? (Another character has a relationship with this guy who lives Back East. I dunno how that's going to come up either.)

Said character also has the trait "by brother died when I was small". That's totally cool, obviously, but should I have told her not to also take a relationship with him?

adam

[Vaxalon]

Taking relationships like those isn't a "strong play" but if she is aware that that die may never come into play, then don't worry about it.

At the same time, you should look for opportunities to bring them into play.

[Darren Hill]

Should players just not take relationships with anyone they couldn't plausibly encounter on their travels? (Another character has a relationship with this guy who lives Back East. I dunno how that's going to come up either.)

The player can invoke that relationship on a Raise or See, by describing how the guy is suddenly there, now, and actively helping.
It's harder to do this with dead guys, but if your supernatural dial is really high...

Said character also has the trait "by brother died when I was small". That's totally cool, obviously, but should I have told her not to also take a relationship with him?

No you shouldn't. If she wanted it as a relationship, well and good, but traits serve a different purpose to relationship and you can have either, or both. Some of my players initially wanted to use relatoionships in a very broad way, and realised that what they actually wanted - as defined in the DITV rules - was a trait, not a relationship.

[Matt Machell]

Her brother can be at stake, even when dead, say if somebody in town is badmouthing his memory, or he's buried in a town you visit and somebody is digging him up.

There are always options, if you tie the brother into what's wrong in a town he'll come up as stakes at some point...

-Matt

[Jason Morningstar]

I'd be really stoked if a player authored both a trait and a relationship focused on a dead relative.  She's begging you to bring him into conflicts in interesting ways and make him a big part of her character's life.  It makes your job that much easier. 

[Andrew Morris]

Yep, when GMing Dogs, I see it as my responsibility to make sure that every player has a chance to use each and every trait on their sheet.  The fact that they wrote it down means that it's important to them.  Thus, it should be important to the GM, as well.

[lumpley]

When I GM Dogs, I see it as no great loss if a given trait or given relationship doesn't happen to come up in play. The players have enough dice on their sheets, they don't need to use every single one, and the consequences of losing a conflict aren't so bad anyway.

I look at apparently-useless traits and relationships as time bombs. It may be six sessions before they come into play, but when they do, cool!

-Vincent

[daHob]

The player can invoke that relationship on a Raise or See, by describing how the guy is suddenly there, now, and actively helping.
It's harder to do this with dead guys, but if your supernatural dial is really high...

Is this correct? I seem to remember a thread where Vincent came out and said that this was a common error in using relationship dice. I though that relationships could only be used at the beginning of a challenge if the relationship was directly involved (as a participant or as part of the stakes), or if you decided during the conflict to assign a relationship to your opposition?

Have I misunderstood?

Steve

[lumpley]

If an NPC comes to your aid in the middle of a conflict, and you don't have a relationship with her, you use the rules for improvised things: if she's normal you roll 1d6, if she's big you roll 1d8, if she's excellent you roll 2d6, if she's big + excellent you roll 2d8, and if she's crap you roll 1d4.

If an NPC comes to your aid in the middle of a conflict, and you DO have a relationship with her, you roll your relationship instead.

I hope that much is clear.

Now, do these rules say that, as part of a raise, you can have your uncle the TA army colonel show up with a cavalry company? They say no such thing. In fact they don't address the question of what's a valid raise, what's a valid see at all. Your group has to work out for itself how and when, if at all, a player gets to use an NPC in a raise or see that way.

-Vincent

[Darren Hill]

Sorry about that, Steve and Vincent. I stated my own interpretation there - I'll be more clear when doing that in the future. It's a good habit to develop, and I was trying to master it - not quite there yet :)

A house rule I use regarding the bonus you get:
If a relationship comes to your aid, you get the improvised dice and the relationship dice. This doesn't make a dramatic difference, it's mainly for my own aesthetic sense - I'm not keen on one person having a relationship getting a smaller bonus than someone who doesn't, which can occasionally happen under the default rules.
There is the flaw that someone who is a troublesome relationship - a d4 - is actually a benefit. But since this should make them a crap improvised object - another d4 - it's not too bad.