[DitV] GMing and Relationships

[greyorm]

I just recieved my copy of DitV in the mail...hrm, two days ago (yay to IPR's May sale!) and finished a read through. I have one question that has been bothering me since my first session, and that involves the use of Relationships in play. On pages 148-149, the text states that Relationships are what conflicts are about, and that choosing Relationships at the start of the game is choosing who/what you want your conflicts to be about.

So...is the GM supposed to take those starting relationships into play at the beginning of the game and work them into the town in some manner? That is, are they Flags? Or do they just sit there until the player says "Hey, when is my Aunt Milicent going to appear in this game? I mean, jeez, I dropped 2d10 on a Relationship with her." I ask because I know I sat through my first game wondering why character creation had me write down any Relationships at all before the game began, since they never came into play, and I would have prefered to spend those dice to create relationships in play instead.

[Vaxalon]

If a player defines a relationship during character creation, I try like blazes to get that character into a town.

[Darren Hill]

If I remember correctly, character creation urges you to keep most of your relationship dice and not spend them till you're in play.
That said, yes, Relationships are a big flag GM's should take account of.

One thing that was suggested long ago on this forum and which has stuck in my mind: notice where it says you get a Relationship's dice if it actively comes to your aid in a conflict? The idea was that players could use their narration to actually state the object of the relationship is suddenly there, and helping. (an explanation of why and how nmight be needed, of course.) It's not so different from using an improvised belonging.

[greyorm]

Thanks guys! That's what I was thinking, but it isn't explicit in the rules (that I recall).

The idea was that players could use their narration to actually state the object of the relationship is suddenly there, and helping. (an explanation of why and how nmight be needed, of course.) It's not so different from using an improvised belonging.

Interesting. I was also wondering about doing that. Is that...well, legal?

[Darren Hill]

In threads like this, I've raised it a few times and Vincent has never said it's not legal. (Which isn't the same thing, I know...)

Whenever you make a Raise or a See, you have to meet your group's standards of acceptability. You can block like so: "my book of life takes the bullet," or "I grab the dustpan from the stove and block his axe blow," or even, "as he raises his gun, a meteorite crashes down between us, and instead of shooting, he looks dumbfounded for a moment." Well, okay, that last one might not fly in some groups.  That's what I mean by having to meet the group's standards.
You can also say, "As this blowhard attacks me, my brother (who the GM earlier described entering this scene) steps in and blocks his strike," and so get to roll the relationship. It's not so great a stretch (considering all the other funky tricks DITV allows you to do with raises and sees) to say, "my brother, who I left in the last town, suddenly leaps into the fray. I'm surprised to see him - he'll tell me what he's doing here after the fight."
Assuming, that is, that the group thinks it's okay. If I was the GM, I'd ask the player to come up with a reason why this character was here - and the rest of the group would be free to help out, which pretty much guarantees that it meets my group's standards of plausibility (and saves me the trouble of coming up with the justification!).

Less of a stretch: you can also do this sort of thing with NPCs you've just met and created a relationship. Say, you meet the Steward and take him as a relationship. Later, in Temple, you get in a conflict with some townsfolk, and as part of your Raise, narrate the Steward arriving and telling everyone to pay attention to the Dog. When my players do this sort of thing, I make sure they don't narrate things that the NPC wouldn't actually do (based on what I know of them from town creation - they aren't going to go against what they want the from the dogs, for example) - but other than that, I allow this sort of thing.