[DitV] Relationships between PCs

[Archer5280]

This may very well be covered in another thread, but my search fu is weak, so here goes...

What's the stance on taking relationships between PCs? What if two PCs are brothers? Can they have a relationship with each other on their character sheet?

The specific context of the question is, I'm trying my hand at running a Banthas/Jedis in the Vineyard game, and I'm trying to figure out how to handle a Jedi Master/Padawan pair in our party. It seems to me like they should have a relationship with each other. The only issue is that those dice will get played in pretty much every conflict, so it's almost like having extra Stat dice.

So, how should this be handled?

Thanks.

[Moreno R.]

I have seen relationships between the dogs in every single game of DitV that I have played. Even if they have not one at the start of the game, they get them soon enough.

But this doesn't mean that they give dice in every conflict.

From "using relationshio" (page 68):

"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.
With a Person: A relationship with a person contributes its dice to your side of a conflict when a) the person is your character's opponent, b) the person is what's at stake, or c) the person comes to your character's active aid in a conflict already underway."

Seeing that the option "c" isn't better that having the other dogs in the conflict from the beginning, and that not every conflict has as stakes the well-being of the dogs, these dice should not be used so much...

[JC]

what Moreno said:

- yes they can have a Relationship (and thus, dice)

- those dice will only get used in very particular circumstances

[lumpley]

Archer, I endorse Moreno's and JC's answer. Does it make sense to you?

Relationships between the PCs are fun and interesting: how much I can help you is how much I can stand in your way, they say.

-Vincent

[Archer5280]

Archer, I endorse Moreno's and JC's answer. Does it make sense to you?

I think it does. Where I was having trouble was "b) the person is at stake." I was interpreting this as "if the person has a stake in the conflict," but it sounds more like I should look at it as "if the person is named in the stakes of the conflict".

Thanks for the help, everyone.

[lumpley]

Precisely!

-Vincent

[JC]

to be totally unambiguous about b):
- X has a relationship with Y
- X is in a conflict with Z
=> X gets extra dice if Y is what\\\'s at stake in that conflict

examples:
- X wants to take Y with him, while Z wants Y to stay => extra dice
- X wants to kill Y\\\'s horse, while Z wants to protect it (Y is nowhere around, and his life isn\\\'t threatened by the fact that his horse dies) => no extra dice