I’m getting ready to start running my first DitV campaign, and one of my players has mentioned that she would really like to emphasize on in-game relationships. She pointed out that in the past I’ve overlooked strong NPC friendships / loved ones / trusted allies, and that allied NPCs I’ve ran in the past never really ‘connected’ with the party. This is something I’m really trying to address both for her interest in the game and as a growth opportunity as a GM, and DitV's Relationship attribibutes make this a great system for this from a design point of view, but the pacing and flow from town to town seems to make this difficult. Does anyone have any tips on injecting strong reoccurring non-antagonistic NPCs in a DitV campaign?

My idea was to have the Dogs operate in a small geographic area, traveling back and forth between a small group of towns and a handful of farms / ranches in-between, so the players have more opportunity to interact with the same NPCs, but that would lead to the same towns being subjected over and over to the rather dire situations that take center stage in a Dogs game. I wouldn’t want the players to get the impression that Faithful communities are sinful corrupt places. (“Here we are, back in Two Hills Branch again. I wonder what terrible atrocity was committed THIS week?”) If I go this route I’ll probably tone down the ‘sin dial’ in my campaign, and have the Dogs take on more mundane issues, and keep murder and other mortal sins for the occasional ‘big whammy’. I’m afraid that might lose the players’ interest, especially my other player, who is looking forward to a more high energy game with the ‘supernatural dial’ cranked up high.

Any ideas?

Remember that it's not YOUR choice whether the PC's re-visit an old Town.  That's under the players' control.

It's not the perfect solution to your problem, but it could help: remember than the relationship of the character could be "accessed" (it's the right word?) with a flashback, or by letter, or even without communicating with them in any way.

For example, the character could remember (or imagine) a conversation with a loved one that could help him in facing a problem. Or could receive (or write) a letter ("write" work even better because seeing that the dogs are the ones who do the postal service, it could be written with no intention to post it). Or, in a conflict with a large time scale, a friend of the character could do something to help him even if he lives in a different city.

The other solution is choosing relationship that are not tied to a place (nomadic mountain people, merchants, other dogs, wandering preachers, bounty killers, a traveling carnival, a wild animal, a beloved fiction author that you search in the library of every town, etc.)

Another again it's to have a relationship following the character (with or without his approval), like for example a insufferable "fan", or a misty-eyed wanna-be girlfriend, or an enemy bent of revenge. (or even a demon. and we all know what does it mean to have a relationship Th a demon...)

You could even reverse the first option: instead of meeting with some person and remember him after the meeting, you could know that in town x, at the end of your "round", you will meet someone (that you love/hate/have curiosity/etc.) and you could imagine him in the previous cities.

Hi Jacob,

You might want to try to go up a level, and develop a Sin Progression that affects a large number of towns, with repercussions in many of them.

For example, if the Dogs saved people in Town A from sin, they go to Town B,

Having region-wide preoccupations might help strenghten the link between the communities and a common stake :
- a single railroad
- a dam that could overflood the region
- a war with the Territorial Authority threatening many towns, perhaps inspired from the "Mormon War" (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War)
- restless tribes of Mountain People attacking many towns

For an example, I suggest you check out the movie THE PATRIOT, with Mel Gibson. You'd see how people can meet the same NPCs over and over without being always at the same place.

If the war erupted between 2 groups of the Faithful (e.g. those aligned with Terrirotorial Authority, those that aren't), with the Ancients of Bridal Falls City involved in negotiating with their leaders (offstage) but with the Dogs dealing with the day-to-day conflits strifed by demons "out of control", you'd be able to keep this "inside the community" and go forth from one town to another.

Erick

Most important: The players will flag the npcs they're interested in by taking relationships to them. If they kill those in conflicts, that doesn't mean they won't play a role later, as these dice come into play in a conflict that is about them, i.e., whenever someone confronts them about killing these people.

If they don't kill them, it's surely OK to have them recur often, since it honors the players' interest in these npcs. Don't forget that there may well be drifters and stablehands that come up in a lot of towns.

Also, there is the implicit 'blood' relationship. In each town, have some of the pcs be related to some of the npcs  - especially where it will make it harder them to dish out judgement.

Regards,
    Harald

Baron, Brother Blood, I really like both your ideas. I think a decent mix of both would really be advantageous.

Vaxalon, you bring up a good point, but based on my past experiences, my presentation of the game will influence how the players interact with the towns and the NPCs. Unless I encourage the players to return to a particular town or revisit a old friend or loved one, I don’t think it would really occur to them. I can foresee the players rarely returning to a town where they forged a strong relationship. Unless I either nudge them back there or pull the NPC out of the town to cross their path again, they may feel like I neglected the NPC ally and the relationship.

From my perspective the players never bothered to try and forge strong relationships with my NPCs in the past, from their perspective my NPCs never ‘came on strong enough.’ They find in-game relationships important, and want me and my NPCs to initialize and take the lead in developing the relationships. That’s OK by me.

First, I think I'll encourage correspondence with out of touch NPCs (maybe introduce the telegraph to makes things easier?) and role-play the correspondence one on one through emails between games, to give the players excuses and motivations to revisit NPC friends and loved ones. I know one of my players will love the idea.

I’ll also encourage flashback scenes as a way to gain Relationship dice in a conflict. It’ll motivate the players (so they get more dice in a conflict) and build on relationships. I don’t expect this to be used often, but it’ll provide the players with another avenue.

I’m hesitant to add an overarching problem or conflict. I was hoping to keep Dogs more centered around personal conflicts. But that’s another cool idea, too.

Thanks for the help, guys!

Jacob wrote:
I’ll also encourage flashback scenes as a way to gain Relationship dice in a conflict. It’ll motivate the players (so they get more dice in a conflict) and build on relationships. I don’t expect this to be used often, but it’ll provide the players with another avenue.

Bret wrote:
Relationship dice only come into play when the individual in the relationship is at stake or opposing the PC, so I'm not sure if this is a possible way to gain dice.

Another thing, Jacob : you can adress these issues specifically with your players, OOC, and ask them outrightly "What NPCs would you like to meet again? Do you have any suggestions on how you can work it out?"

You could do this like a meeting before an improvisation match, discussing the global way to play a Town and its stakes with the players, and then play the town itself.

DITV's quite good with this style, as you don't need secrets.

Erick

Jacob, there's also another thing I noticed happens playing DitV: the PC relationships with one another are often more intense than in other games.

I think this comes from the fact that people reacting to difficult choiches cannot avoid reacting strongly also to other people confronted with those same choices. I think in this game I've seen some of the hottest agreements/disagreements between PC.

Claudia's got a good point. Perhaps you can choose your NPCs that come back among those whose situations generated the greatest emotional challenges or divisions among the PCs. This is like pouring salt in an blistering wound, forcing the players to pick up that emotion again. (It's evil, but it works.)

Say, a kind father of young kids they liked in the last town comes after them with his brothers, revenge on his mind, because the murderer they spared in this very last town killed them.

Sometimes, a town from the past can come to the PCs even as they enter a new one...

Bret wrote:

Jacob wrote:
I’ll also encourage flashback scenes as a way to gain Relationship dice in a conflict. It’ll motivate the players (so they get more dice in a conflict) and build on relationships. I don’t expect this to be used often, but it’ll provide the players with another avenue.

Relationship dice only come into play when the individual in the relationship is at stake or opposing the PC, so I'm not sure if this is a possible way to gain dice.

I'm going to wait for Vincent to weigh in on these.  I have my opinions but I have been wrong before.

Short answers today. I'm not curt, just busy.

Only roll relationship dice a) when the person is your opponent; b) when the person is at stake; or c) instead of improvised belongings dice. Don't stretch these rules.

Dogs isn't about the long-term relationships between the Dogs and the townspeople. Trying to make it be so won't improve the game!

-Vincent

I'd definitely preach against the heresy of using Relationships as Traits -- they each have their own function, and muddling them together is doing no one any favors.  If you want to always be remembering what your grandpa told you, take it as a trait!  "Grandpa taught me everything I know 4d4" or whatever.

If you build a town with the ladder of sin and follow the GM advice (reveal the town aggressively in play, escalate, escalate, escalate, say yes or roll the dice) the NPCs should be plenty grabby and intense, and reach a satisfying resolution that doesn't require coming back to them over and over.

Or if Mountain Folk themes appeal, I note the Mountain Folk are nomads, so may show up in multiple towns.  Maybe the Mountain Folk have adapted the tenets of the Faith and that's spreading like wildfire through them, and threatening to lure some of the Faithful away into the New Faith.
The Ghost Dance might be a useful source of ideas.

That said, I wonder whether it might be possible to structure a Dogs campaign around a trip back east, plus maybe the return.  Paka had a great idea for a town that was actually a train headed east, but if you want more time set it before the railroad comes to the Territory, so the Dogs are along to guard a caravan headed east, and make those folks up as a town, but then also make "towns" for various stops along the way, so you get a recurring cast of non-Dogs but also new blood in each game.  (Is "Wagon Train" out on DVD yet?)

So you'd have the young man headed east to learn to be a Doctor, the family that's given up the Faith and leaving the territory, the mysterious ex-Dog who plans to go east and kill the President so he won't outlaw Polygamy in the Territory, or whatever.

Mind you, that's not what I'd choose for my first campaign.  I'd play it as written and see how things turn out, then try running variations on the theme. As the PCs get more and more entangled with each other's hearts, you may find the players may not mind that NPCs come and go, after all.

But stay away from the Relationship Heresy, I beg you!

--
Carl

"Let me tell you about my Grannie 3d10"