Okay, so I've read the line "Traits determine how conflicts are resolved, but Relationships determine what conflicts will be about."  I don't see how this works out mechanically, except if the GM is looking over character sheets and putting the mentioned people into the towns he's creating.  Is this the intended meaning?  Because otherwise I don't see how my character's Relationships will necessarily be relevant in Random Next Town when the Relationship is with a person two towns back.

The GM should very much be taking into account the relationships that the PC has.  Remember that one of the options is to revisit a town you've left behind before.

Joshua wrote: I don't see how this works out mechanically, except if the GM is looking over character sheets and putting the mentioned people into the towns he's creating.

First of all, the rulebook suggests that GMs take their cue from Players in determining which conflicts matter.  Second, Relationships aren't always with people, but can be with institutions, sins, demons, etc.  And finally, yeah, the Players should be taking some responsibility to steer the game themselves, so long as they don't tread on the toes of the GM.

Suppose my character has written in his Relationships, "Only stern self-discipline keeps me from returning once again to Gluttony, 1d4."  Man, I'm just begging my GM to write temptation into a story.  How about a banquet to welcome our Dogs to the branch?  And if he doesn't, hell, I might put it in there myself.  I mean, every town has food, right?  And that d4 means I want my character to be especially vulnerable to this sin; it really "complicates his life."

Or suppose my sheet says "A long conversation with a marshall has made me sympathetic to the goals of the Territorial Authority, 1d8."  That spells trouble, too, when my duties as a Dog don't match the goals of the TA.

I think it's the GM's job to follow his Players' cues.  But it's also the Player's job to select his Relationships with care and to follow through when they're presented as possible stakes or opponents.  If my character from the second example passes up a couple opportunities to make his Relationship with the TA "what's at stake" in a conflict, or to mess with TA personnel, then I can't rightfully expect my GM to keep serving up those conflicts in the game; It'd just waste his time and mine.

Don't forget, too, that characters should have a handy little pool of unassigned Relationship dice.  Why not declare them when you get to a new town as a way of steering the action toward conflict?  After a conversation with the branch Steward, I assign a Relationship die: "I really mistrust that arrogant Brother Ephraim in Cow Hollow, 1d6."

Assuming that you start off with, as the book tells you to, mostly relationships to other people and develope the ones to sins and institutions in play then Tony's method is one of the best to keep the relationships hopping.

Josh, do you watch Law and Order SVU? (I can't remember now if you do or not.) Because that show has all sorts of relationships that keep coming up over and over, even when the person isn't actually physically present. At least two or three times a year Olivia will spur a conflict with her relationship to her absuive, drunken, raped mother -- who just happens to have been dead for 5 years or so. Same deal with Jack's wife on 24, or Bartlet's father in the early-mid seasons of West Wing.

I mean, your character has a relationship to "Abigail Tomson (the girl who wanted Rebecca to stay): 3d4" -- even if I don't bring Abigail into play, but have other girls wanting girls to stay, or girls wanting you to stay, or girls who were forced to leave because of the way they felt about each other, do you think you won't be able to drive that relationship in there and make the conflict (at least partly) about that?

I thought the Relationship was only relevant when the person was (a) the stakes or (b) the opponent.  Can I bring the Relationship in through allusions or associations, as well?

Consider.

My character has a relationship.  "Sister Harriet, the victim of sexual abuse in Green Meadows branch: 1d8."

Now, thinking as a GM, I'm wondering whether I should let this player bring such a relationship into play only when it involves Sister Harriet, or when it involves anyone who's a "victim of sexual abuse."  My gut tells me "only Sister Harriet, the person described in the Relationship."  My gut tells me, "If the player wants a Relationship to an allusion, the closest thing would probably be a Relationships to the Sin of sexual abuse."  My gut, in fact, seems to echo the Schoolhouse Rock lecture-in-song about Nouns: "A noun is a person, place, or thing."  Am I wrong to apply the same general guideline to Relationships?  Does it restrict them too much?

And depending upon the Accomplishments a player declares during character creation, I don't see any problem with letting the player select a Relationship with a Sin or Institution.  In fact, part of the Creating Characters section declares openly that if the player does not select a Trait such as "I'm a dog," he or she must declare a Relationship with the Dogs.  I'm not clear why Relationships should be restricted to people at the outset.

Neal wrote: Am I wrong to apply the same general guideline to Relationships?  Does it restrict them too much?

And to go along with what Tony was saying:

You've to a relationship to "Sister Maria, a sexual abuse victim over there." You are now dealing with a sexual abuse victim here. Can you add dice? Not just for saying, "Oh, I know another girl that was sexually abused." If otoh, you set the stakes as "I want to stop this now so that I can go home and look Sister Maria in the face again" then you'd better believe that it will.

Same deal in 24, Jack's player can't just say "Oh, this woman could die, like my dead wife, so I want to use my dice." He can, however, say, "This bitch killed my wife and my love for my wife demands that I shoot her ass now despite the fact she has important information and I'm on camera at the moment" and get those "Dead wife" dice in the conflict -- because his relationship to the dead love is at the heart of what the conflict is actually about.

To get the dice the conflict has to be about that relationship as a person that you love/hate/whatever. That is how relationships decide what conflicts are about. However that doesn't mean the person has to be there looking at you for the conflict to be about them.

Consider the difference between the conflicts of "I kill the man because he's a sinner and chid abuser" and "I kill the bastard because he's so much like my dad, who I couldn't kill but always wanted to and killing him will be like murdering my father" and how very different it makes your character to everyone at the table.

P.S. Not to mention what happens when everyone else that watches you starts to send word back to your dad about how you killed the guy and obviously were thinking about him when you pulled the trigger.

Neal wrote:
... thinking as a GM, I'm wondering whether I should let this player bring such a relationship into play only when it involves Sister Harriet, or when it involves anyone who's a "victim of sexual abuse."  My gut tells me "only Sister Harriet, the person described in the Relationship."  My gut tells me, "If the player wants a Relationship to an allusion, the closest thing would probably be a Relationships to the Sin of sexual abuse."  My gut, in fact, seems to echo the Schoolhouse Rock lecture-in-song about Nouns: "A noun is a person, place, or thing."  Am I wrong to apply the same general guideline to Relationships?  Does it restrict them too much?

While the method Tony and Brand advocates is a fine way to play (and easier in many ways, too), Vincent is on record as saying that's not what he intended - but that he does break that rule occasionally when it feels right.
(If I am misquoting Vincent, this will at least prompt him to clarify :))

By the rules, which are quite clearly stated, a relationship with a person is only relevant in certain circumstances, and "because they might hear about my deeds" is not one of them.
However, players do have the power to bring any relationship into any conflict, by describing as part of a Raise or See how they are suddenly physically present and helping. This might stretch credibility if done too often, or not - depending on the game and situation.

If players want a relationship to "Sister Maria, a sexual abuse victim over there," and want to use this with any sexual abuse victim they encounter, they can take this as a Trait, not a Relationship.

FTR, I think Darren is right.

It just happens to be the ONLY place where I disagree with Vincent about the perfection of Dogs.

However, I've had my say and will shut it now.

Darren wrote: By the rules, which are quite clearly stated, a relationship with a person is only relevant in certain circumstances, and "because they might hear about my deeds" is not one of them.

Dogs win conflicts often enough, in my experience, that it really isn't necessary for them to take broadly applicable relationships.

I have, however, seen players who are desperate for more dice, assign their free relationship dice to their adversaries in a conflict, in the middle of the conflict.  "I hate Brother Jesse" is a powerful statement to make on a character sheet, and not one they do lightly... it was very much a last resort.

Fred, while I have yet to play the game (tomorrow is DitV-Day), what you describe just rubs me the wrong way.  I might consider letting a player assign relationship dice to an opponent after a conflict, maybe even between a conflict and its follow-up, and it's certainly kosher to assign those dice prior to a conflict, but not in the middle of a conflict.  And certainly not because the player is "desperate for more dice."  I can't think of anything that more clearly violates the spirit of the game, as I understand it.

Actually, taking a relationship to your opponent in the middle of a conflict because you need the dice is completely kosher. Doesn't hurt the game a bit.

In the middle of conflicts, I often say, "well, are you going to give, shoot her, or take a relationship with her?"

-Vincent

Neal wrote:
  I can't think of anything that more clearly violates the spirit of the game, as I understand it.

Neal wrote: I can't think of anything that more clearly violates the spirit of the game, as I understand it.

James, thanks for the pointer.  I had read that section (p. 41 in my edition) not an hour before posting, and then forgotten it, probably because I was focusing on p. 39: "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."  I guess I'll have to wait and see how this sort of thing takes shape in actual play.  I suppose the dividing line between "making a powerful statement about my character" and "tossing some extra dice on the table because I like to win" will depend on how the player describes his end of the conflict.

Neal,

There is also an issue to consider in the "what it is about" section of relationships and conflicts.

If you have an established relationship going into a conflict, then for the conflict to be about it you must introduce it on the way in. If this is about your dad, you know it is about your dad going in and have to state it there. (If it becomes about your dad later its probably something to pick up in a followup conflict.)

If, otoh, you are in a conflict and suddenly develop a relationship to the person you are in the conflict with then there is a real way in which this conflict has become about that relationship -- because it was the conflict that formed that relationship. If you suddenly get "Hates Brand Robins 2d8" in the middle of this discussion, then there is a real way in which the point of the discussion (from a dramatic PoV) was about you learning to hate me.

A conflict that generates a new relationship is thus prime material for the relationship to be added into, because the conflict is about the formation of that relationship and the relationship is about that conflict. The whole "what it is about" segement thus comes full circle and works perfectly.

Brand, I think there's a lot of sense in what you're saying, now that you put it that way.  I think I needed that phrasing to make the Relationships-in-mid-conflict thing sound like something other than dicemonkeys running amok.  It even sounds pretty liberating, especially when you consider that those new conflict-spawned Relationships don't have to be limited to hatred.  Ex. "I know Sister Jaelle's views are wrong -- really, really wrong -- but I can't help it; I find her incredibly exciting: 1d8."

I guess what was hanging me up was the notion that a conflict seemed to call for Relationships to be on the table at the outset, a part of "what's at stake."  I think I may have been reading the rules backwards, if that makes sense.  For a Relationship to come into play during combat, it has to be either "what's at stake" or the opposition.  This seems to be what you're saying in your second paragraph.  At the outset, the conflict is either about/against your dad, or it's not.  But I guess that doesn't preclude conflict from spawning new Relationships on the fly.

What you're describing in the third paragraph (the conflict that generates a new Relationship) brings up a conceptual problem I think I may be (or have been) having, and that is the difference between "what it's about" and "what's at stake."  Looking at what I've written above, I think that's just something I'll have to work out as I play the game.  From where I am now, it seems to me I've folded the two together.  If I'm right, you're saying they're not necessarily the same thing.  If so, that does make sense.  My character's attempt to save the little brown-haired girl from drowning might not be about the girl, the river, or any of that; it might be about his own fear of water.  Once he gets into the water and fights the current, he might develop a sudden relationship with this particular river, or with the little brown-haired girl, as his struggle takes on new intensity.  Does that sound like what you're describing?

Neal wrote: What you're describing in the third paragraph (the conflict that generates a new Relationship) brings up a conceptual problem I think I may be (or have been) having, and that is the difference between "what it's about" and "what's at stake."  Looking at what I've written above, I think that's just something I'll have to work out as I play the game.  From where I am now, it seems to me I've folded the two together.  If I'm right, you're saying they're not necessarily the same thing.  If so, that does make sense.  My character's attempt to save the little brown-haired girl from drowning might not be about the girl, the river, or any of that; it might be about his own fear of water.  Once he gets into the water and fights the current, he might develop a sudden relationship with this particular river, or with the little brown-haired girl, as his struggle takes on new intensity.  Does that sound like what you're describing?

Darren wrote:
By the rules, which are quite clearly stated, a relationship with a person is only relevant in certain circumstances, and "because they might hear about my deeds" is not one of them.
However, players do have the power to bring any relationship into any conflict, by describing as part of a Raise or See how they are suddenly physically present and helping. This might stretch credibility if done too often, or not - depending on the game and situation.

If players want a relationship to "Sister Maria, a sexual abuse victim over there," and want to use this with any sexual abuse victim they encounter, they can take this as a Trait, not a Relationship.

Brand_Robins wrote: The stakes of a conflict are what you're trying to do. What it is about is why you are doing it, or at least why you are doing it the way you are doing it.

Joshua wrote:
The stakes of a conflict are what THE CHARACTER is trying to do.  What it is about is why THE PLAYER is directing the character to do it, or at least why THE PLAYER is directing the character to do it in the way the character is doing it.

Karasu wrote:
Just to make sure I'm clear on this. So it's the difference between taking the Relationship "Sister Maria, who was sexually abused in Sweet Water" and the Trait "I won't let anyone else suffer like Sister Maria"? The first could only be drawn upon for dice if Sister Maria is at stake or if she's the opponent. The second, however, could be used in a conflict to help prevent someone from being subjected to a fate, correct?

With all due respect to Darren, I think I'd allow it as a Relationship with Sexual Abuse, as a Sin.  It makes perfect sense as a Trait, of course, but I think it could work as a Relationship as well.  In keeping with what I've read here and in the rulebook, the acid test seems to be what is most important to the character.  If it's Sister Maria, then you have a Relationship with Sister Maria.  If it's a resolve never to let anyone suffer that way again, it's a Trait.  If it's a commitment to stop the sin itself, again, it could be a Relationship with that Sin.  In choosing that last path, the player is making a statement like, "My character has come to view Sexual Abuse as a personal affront, and something that must be fought."  If the player anthropomorphizes the sin, then there shouldn't be a problem with forming a Relationship with it.

Mechanically, then, the Relationship and the Trait would work about the same way, I think.  But the choice which slot to drop it into says something about the character.  Traits seem often more inward, Relationships more outward.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's what I'm picking up.

This is important. This is how the "a relationship comes to your active aid" rule really works.

If you bring an NPC into a raise or see, and you don't have a relationship with the NPC, you get dice as though the NPC were an improvised belonging. d4 if he's crap, 2d8 if he's big plus quality. Right?

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.

In MY game, if you have a big plus quality cousin, and you haven't assigned relationship dice to her, you get the d6 for blood, NOT the 2d8 for big plus quality. Similarly, even if your cousin's crap, you get the d6 for blood, not the d4. Having a cousin come to your aid is automatically different from having a stranger come to your aid.

In YOUR game, feel free to get whichever dice are better, if that's how you'd rather play it.

Now, say I have a relationship with a sin, let's say whorin'. Can whorin' come to my active aid in a conflict? Maaaaybe. Clearly, that'd mean that I brought it concretely into a raise or a see - and if I can figure out how to do that, more power (more dice) to me.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
If you bring an NPC into a raise or see, and you don't have a relationship with the NPC, you get dice as though the NPC were an improvised belonging. d4 if he's crap, 2d8 if he's big plus quality. Right?

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?

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

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

lumpley wrote: 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.

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

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?

Brand: ah, sure thing. Cool.

-Vincent