So, what is the difference between an R-Map and a (possibly partial) family tree?

-Lisa

Family trees only include, "legitemet" members of a family: Marriages and children born of those marriages. R-Maps include ALL ties of sex and family. So affairs and children born of those affairs are listed as well.

Also an R-Map all by its lonesome isn't very useful. It needs to be tied into some kind of backstory or situation that stress and threaten those ties.

Jesse

As I understand it, a Sorcerer relationship map just deals with how people feel about each other. The fact that Bob and Jim are brothers is noted in their character info, but it's probably more crucial to the session whether they're scheming to discredit each other to take lone possession of their father's inheritance, or that they're both having an affair with the same woman.

Family relationships usually involve some sort of emotional connection, obviously, but the point being that they don't prescribe behavior the way "love/hate" do.

Reverse ..i think..

Sorcerer R-Maps detail only Sex and Blood. The Character info and background behind it add the details like "double-crosses X", or "hates Y"

Its the fact that the people in the R-Map are related that makes the details matter. "Bob has a vendetta agains Jill and wishes to see her dead" is much more interesting and sticky if you know that Bob and Jill are Husband-Wife, Brother-Sister, Father-Daughter...

I think.. though I may be wrong..

Jason

Jason has it right. The R-Maps as discussed in Sorcerer's Soul are about diagraming relationships of sex and blood. Who hates whom or works for whom, etc are all part of the backstory that goes in plain old fashioned GM notes.

Jesse

Hello,

Jason's correct, and Andrew, I'm afraid you have it backwards. "Who feels what about whom" maps are common in role-playing texts; relationship maps as described in The Sorcerer's Soul are not.

That reminds me: organizations are not represented by lines in a relationship map. The Mafia, or the Lion Clan, or the Brujah, or the Kergillians ... not represented by lines. Such associations might be scribbled onto a map as notes, or marked by asterisks or little stars or colors, but such things would be placed onto the map rather than used to construct it.

Best,
Ron

Thanks, folks, once again I had a certainty of something that was exactly opposite of the correct answer. I had the "organizational connections don't go on R-Maps" bit in my head, and conflated that with familiar relationships.

To continue this a little...

At the present I have a Relationship Map that has three distinct little "islands". These islands bring the total amount of characters in our story to around 15 I think and each island is separated according to geographical location. Within each of these islands there's usually only one or two characters that are blood/sex matched. Also, as I mentioned in an earlier thread regarding this, for the most the PCs aren't actually connected to any other character. Is this a common structure for other peoples R-Maps? ie to have islands that aren't connected in the classic S&Soul sense(they may be in other ways however..loyalty, hatred, death etc)

cheers

Jason K.

For interest's sake, if the islands aren't connected, in what sense are they part of the same story?

- James

Hello,

"Connected by a line on the relationship map" is one thing, "involved in one another's problems" is another, and "care about one another" is yet another.

Characters who are bound together ideologically or mystically, for instance, with no relationship-map ties, are almost automatically raising the question of whether such ideological/mystical ties are worth anything in the crunch. (Unless it's a predicated part of play that they are, period.)

I really hope no one is getting the idea that the lines on a relationship are the ones which matter to a story ...

... or worse, that player-characters are necessarily supposed to be included in the map. In fact, I suggest that for Sorcerer specifically, the main characters are perhaps somewhat better off not being parts of the map, at least not by default.

Best,
Ron

To be a little clearer...

James: The story thus far has them moving between two towns. Ostensibly there's no Blood-Sex connection between the two. There's business between the islands, connections of loyalty and betrayal, emnity and what not. The story thus far has the connections being tested. We've come around to realise that we're working with a dual-premise campaign where "What is the price of freedom?" and "Just exactly who can you trust?" serve to drive our narrative. (we're using the Midnight setting as inspiration/source).

Ron: After your comments regarding hooking players vs characters in another thread I think I understand the fact that players don't need to be intrinsic to the R-Map. I'm getting the feeling that the characters, as protagonists act as a kind of stress test of those connections both on and off the map as they choose a side of the premise and act out accordingly. Does this make sense?

In the interests of simplicity/laziness I include some connections on my R-Maps that match up to the TROS SA Passion(such as Love, Hatred, Loyalty, Emnity). However, do you think if I was to trim down the amount of people in the map to just those linked by the S&Soul (I don't own this book yet but I've ordered it) connections that the story would be more intense(we have five players atm)? Or are these sort of extended R-Maps, discrete in their on-map connections, common?

cheers

Jason K.

Hello,

Jason (Malechi), you wrote,

I'm getting the feeling that the characters, as protagonists act as a kind of stress test of those connections both on and off the map as they choose a side of the premise and act out accordingly. Does this make sense?

In the interests of simplicity/laziness I include some connections on my R-Maps that match up to the TROS SA Passion(such as Love, Hatred, Loyalty, Emnity). However, do you think if I was to trim down the amount of people in the map to just those linked by the S&Soul ... connections that the story would be more intense(we have five players atm)? Or are these sort of extended R-Maps, discrete in their on-map connections, common?

Okay, so R-map is a family tree, really, plain and simple, yes?

Let me play devil's advocate: I think the R-map is being overemphasized. It is a useful tool. It should be used. It is not an uber-tool and should not be treated as such.

-Lisa

Hi Lisa,

Depends on what you mean by "family tree." It means connections of kin and connections of sexual contact.

As for its use, I think a lot of people perceive a lot of weird things when they read a pretty simple explanation in The Sorcerer's Soul, or more accurately, when they see the words "relationship map." I spend more time disentangling those weird things than I ever would have imagined.

So yeah, I agree with you - it's a tool. A very powerful and useful tool, and ideally suited for Sorcerer play which emphasizes the Humanity score. But the be-all and end-all? Nope.

One last point, though ... to someone who's skilled with the tool, it may seem odd to spend all this time dealing with it. But you might be surprised at how many role-players out there not only don't see its uses, but immediately fly into a rage (or some kind of emotional reaction, it's hard to identify, frankly) upon hearing about it. I suggest being wary of becoming contemptuous of a tool simply because you're good at using it.

Best,
Ron

Point taken. I remember hearing that folks once left the room, highly offended, when hearing about the new Diceless Amber RPG. I don't get that either.

And yes, it's useful. The one I was discussing in a different thread, sure the PCs and players know all about it now, and it wasn't exactly a shocker of a revelation then, but it was exactly the correct tool.

I had a plot thread: Kid X is being used for Foul Magical Purposes (TM). Then I decided his father, who knew all about it, was the governor of Floriday. And then I decided he had an older brother, someone who'd already appeared as a minor NPC I wanted to flesh out anyway, and who, I'd already established, had come from a rich and/or powerful family.

-Lisa

Ron Edwards wrote: One last point, though ... to someone who's skilled with the tool, it may seem odd to spend all this time dealing with it. But you might be surprised at how many role-players out there not only don't see its uses, but immediately fly into a rage (or some kind of emotional reaction, it's hard to identify, frankly) upon hearing about it. I suggest being wary of becoming contemptuous of a tool simply because you're good at using it.

Hello,

John, I think you're misrepresenting my point slightly, or missing it a little.

I've never encountered any sort of rage or any other weird emotional reaction about Soul-style relationship maps from people involved in a game. They uniformly respond positively. I'm referring to people who are talking about role-playing, and who flatly reject the notion that we, the real humans, are well-primed (for whatever reason) to respond to NPC kin and sex ties at a fairly automatic level.

For instance, they'll immediately raise as an objection that other ties are important too (which I do not dispute).

The reaction usually comes from people who seem, to me, to be emotionally wedded to forms of play in which the characters (a) are special and "beyond" various normal human ties and (b) are members of political factions which have more in common with conspiracy theories and hidden-world "unseen realities" than with any kind of real political agenda. To suggest that players may respond with more interest and commitment to issues of infidelity among three regular-people NPCs than to issues of whether the Templars are responsible for WWII is very threatening to them, apparently.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

John, I think you're misrepresenting my point slightly, or missing it a little.

I've never encountered any sort of rage or any other weird emotional reaction about Soul-style relationship maps from people involved in a game. They uniformly respond positively. I'm referring to people who are talking about role-playing, and who flatly reject the notion that we, the real humans, are well-primed (for whatever reason) to respond to NPC kin and sex ties at a fairly automatic level.

For instance, they'll immediately raise as an objection that other ties are important too (which I do not dispute).

The reaction usually comes from people who seem, to me, to be emotionally wedded to forms of play in which the characters (a) are special and "beyond" various normal human ties and (b) are members of political factions which have more in common with conspiracy theories and hidden-world "unseen realities" than with any kind of real political agenda. To suggest that players may respond with more interest and commitment to issues of infidelity among three regular-people NPCs than to issues of whether the Templars are responsible for WWII is very threatening to them, apparently.

Hi folks,

I see usually 3 areas of contention that usually spring up with R-maps as a tool.

In regards to "how" they're intended to be used(in a Sorcerer sense), they're part of a style of play that rejects the preplanned scenario events, that alone tends to get folks riled who are rather intrenched in habitual play.

Second, usually based on experience with games laden with metaplot, you usually have groups fighting based on abstract machiavellian politics...hence the issue Ron is talking about.

Finally, for those folks who study stories, conflict between characters occurs on an emotional level. The "other stuff" that Ron talks about is very important, it just happens that the people who we are related to, or more importantly, grew up with, or choose to have sex with, are almost always loaded with that emotional content. Even an absent family member(such as a missing father) stirs up emotions as much as a present one.

Chris

So, is the following me creating an R-map, or is it something else entirely?

I read a WitchCraft supplement, and decided I could easily plug in one of the Covenants to my campaign. I jotted down some ideas about what these guys would do, and how they might interact with the PCs.

Then, I looked at my various NPCs already in play. I'm a big fan of recycling.

So, I pick one NPC, a young man, about 20 or so. I figure his father's in the Covenant. The father may well try to recruit his son, and some of his son's friends.

Did I just create an R-map or what?

-Lisa

Hi Lisa,

To a small extent, yes, you did. Pretty easy, huh? The point is not to stop with the Covenant that you decided to use, which would mean focusing on their outlook and their plans as the only source of conflict/opportunity they present. Now you have this father-son thing going on within the Covenant, which provides sources of conflicts and opportunity of its own.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: To a small extent, yes, you did. Pretty easy, huh?

Ron Edwards wrote: The point is not to stop with the Covenant that you decided to use, which would mean focusing on their outlook and their plans as the only source of conflict/opportunity they present. Now you have this father-son thing going on within the Covenant, which provides sources of conflicts and opportunity of its own.

Batman and the Joker aren't related by blood, but that doesn't stop their battles from being personal.

Ron -- sorry if I wasn't clear. I understood that the objections were from people who hear about the technique rather than players in the game. My point is that I suspect that people probably have a reaction to it based on miscommunication. For example, if you say "Sometimes it's handy to have a family tree of NPCs", I doubt it would meet with visceral disagreement. Then again, I'm not sure, not having talked with anti-relationship-map people.

Hello,

Lisa, I agree about non-relationship-map material as well - obviously, such "ties" (including enmity) are a part of the emotional and narrative landscape. We can go around all day about "but the kin/sex ones are very important" and "the non-kin/sex ones are important too," just repeating, on and on. There are more than a couple threads here that do just that, so I hope we don't have to.

John, the reaction I sometimes see usually comes from someone who puts great stock in complex setting-material regarding conspiracies among hidden organizations. The person wonders why his players don't care about what the NPCs are doing, or rather, they go into "find bad guy stop bad guy" mode. I suspect quite a bit of investment in time, money, and subcultural identity (as gamer, as GM, as customer of specific line, e.g. White Wolf) lies behind his or her strong reaction to my suggestion that they include kin/sex ties among some of the NPCs.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Lisa, I agree about non-relationship-map material as well - obviously, such "ties" (including enmity) are a part of the emotional and narrative landscape. We can go around all day about "but the kin/sex ones are very important" and "the non-kin/sex ones are important too," just repeating, on and on. There are more than a couple threads here that do just that, so I hope we don't have to.

Okay, so, yesterday, I ran CthuhluPunk. The mission: Rescue a 6-year-old and his older brother from unknown kidnappers.

The brothers were part of a small R-map -- 2 brothers, their parents, older brother's girlfreind, supernatural critter pretending to be the girlfriend. Everyone knew this going in.

There was the group I mentioned in an earlier post that I intended to introduce if I could. One of its members is the father of one of the NPCs who's a friend of the brother. So, that's an R-map of 2 people -- for now. I'll probably add a wife for the father and other kids.

And I hinted at this -- the son seemed to find the set up of a magical circle somewhat familiar. And the player I expected to get it got it.

I wasn't sure for much of the episode when or if to introduce this group. I wanted basically a cameo.

As things wrapped up, I saw my moment. Improvising, I had the group show up, minus the father in the R-map. (The son wasn't there either, but he doesn't yet know what his father's up to, so that was a given from square one.) The sorcerers asked if their help was needed. On seeing it wasn't, they left. That's it.

Well, except that a) everyone was really interested about this new group, b) said group noticed one of the PCs had a Really Powerful Spirit working with her and backed away from her, and c) this PC recognized one of the sorcerers.

I hadn't been sure that was the right call when I made it, but oh, man, it was. See, this guy did some icky things in the past -- as in, a century ago. He put people's souls in gems, and the PC saw him selling these gems at a faerie market. He'd been one of three people she was considering using as a teacher, and this made her decide against him. She figured that there might be a reason to put someone in a soul gem, or to sell an empty soul gem -- but not to do what he was doing.

This totally changed the reaction of the PCs to the mystery group! There was no combat -- hadn't expected any -- but the sense of something unknown and ambiguous that I'd hoped for was there. Beautiful.

And this happened by introducing an NPC who wasn't part of the R-map above.

Except...

Except that he's part of a different R-map. See, the first person he put into a soul gem was his wife. The PCs had that soul gem some time ago -- one of them had been given it by her mother who picked it up in 19th century London, blissfully ignorant of what it was. (The year of the game is 2023, just so you know.)

When the PCs contacted the soul, they learned that her husband, despite her pleas, had stuck her soul in this gem. And he had broken his promise to her to destroy the gem and free her soul when the experiment was over.

Oh yes, we've got an R-map in here, nicely interweaving with all of the other maps.

-Lisa