So...I'm in the midst of fleshing out the section of the rules about Connections, and acting on them, and getting Love. And I'm realizing just how much I detest my own terminology. In particular, I'm having a lot of issues with the use of the phrase "act on a Connection" to describe what a player must do to get the dice roll. I desperately want a different phrase, and I'm even somewhat interested in changing "Connections" to some other term, but I can't seem to come up with terminology that appropriately and succinctly represents the concept of the kind of overture a character must make. You gotta give love to get love. It's an overture of some risk.

And "Relationships" doesn't seem like an acceptable substitute for "Connections" to me, because it's not quite unrequited enough.

Any thoughts?

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: Any thoughts?

Hey,

I like "Love" for the name of the quality that's gained.

"Connection" does seem too clinical. How about going Period to answer the question? What term or phrase seems right for the times?

Best,
Ron

There's some term, on the tip of my tongue, so to speak, that is period, means Platonic Love, and could well be a single sided affair. Arrgh! Won't. Come. Out!

Might be French or Latin or something. The first stab I had at it was Comraderie. But that's not it, something like that somehow (of course, when it does come out it will be nothing like that at all).

Mike

Thinking along the lines of Obsession, but less judgemental: Passion. I shoulda suggeted that right off, as I use it in &Sword (and it's the term used in TROS as well, duh).

Or you could just list them under a header, People or something.

Mike

Maybe "Chain" or "Bond" for "Connection."

Best,

Blake

Hmmmm ...

I'm thinking, split Connections into two parts: "Persons" and "Bonds," so that you can add more specifics to the "Acting on Connection" concept - strengthen a Bond, or connect with a Person, or something like that.

Or this may be all totally wrong. Dunno.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm thinking, split Connections into two parts: "Persons" and "Bonds," so that you can add more specifics to the "Acting on Connection" concept - strengthen a Bond, or connect with a Person, or something like that.

Hi Kirt,

Well, I was thinking just in terms-terms, and not mechanics at all - in other words, "strengthening a Bond" or "helping a Person" would be the same mechanics-act, just different ways of saying the same thing.

On second thought, that might be plain confusing.

Best,
Ron

Hey,

Not surprisingly, I failed to convey my real terminology frustration. What I really can't stand in the text I've been writing is phrases like "target of the..." and "subject of the..." that I find myself forced to use in relation to terms like Connection and Bond. "The Target of the Connection resists by rolling Fear minus Reason....To act on a Connection, the Minion must make an overture of risk to the subject of the Connection." Ugh! The problem arises because "Connection" is a term for the link, and not the subject of the link. What I really want, is a term that can apply to an NPC who is the subject of an initially unrequited connection, a term that can represent that the NPC is the subject of affection, or just curiousity. Connectee and Bondee are terrible words, but have pretty much the right unspecified emotional payload. One of the examples of a Connection in the rules is, "His hands are those of the deceased carpenter whose widow lives in town." The statement isn't required to betray the emotional content of the relationship, or pre-empt serendipitous emotional revelations through play, and the replacement term should preserve that.

And I have this further notion that a substitute for the "act on a Connection" phrase might follow somewhat obviously from this desired renaming.

Easier said than done, eh?

Paul

So you want an additional term for the subject of a Connection. "Beloved," as I suggested before. Other suggestions: "Dearest." "Precious."

"When a target wishes to gain Love from a Connection, he must interact with his Precious and roll..."

(I kinda like the Gollum associations with that one.)

Paul, that's a sticky wicket.

Connection is serviceable in my opinion, but I think "Bond" or even "Shackle" is more period, though the latter takes a more onerous tone.

What about "Care" for the individual who is the object of the minion's devotion? Or (though a tad less pithy) simply "Object of Devotion"? Or "Desire"?

"Overture of risk" doesn't sound terribly clear. I'd consider just dropping that in favor of more straightforward language. Though efforts by the Minion to Bond with an Object of Devotion could be neatly described as Overtures. That sounds period to me.

Best,

Blake

Hi Paul,

"Persons" and "Overtures."

So no more "subject of" and "target of" - they are Persons, and that's that. Acting toward them becomes an Overture, and that's that. I think this works perfectly (and Overture was exactly what I was groping for earlier).

Best,
Ron

Seems to me we have three things here, really. We have the NPC who is the target of the attempt to garner requited love. We have the attempt itself. And we have the result of the attempt (always created, no failure).

Persons works, but does not do much to indicate them as subjects of the attempt. "Personal Interests"? Eh, I'm still blocked there. If we wanted to just go technical, why not just NPC?

Overtures is perfect for the attempt. But it does not seem to be indicative of the bond that's created. Bond is good for that. But again does not indicate the onesided nature. Today one would say you have a "Thing" for that person. Which makes me despair of finding a better name for it. If we have to resort to such a generic euphamism then there's probably little hope. There has to be a French word for this.

So we have a PC making an overture to an NPC which always results in a Thing. hmm.

Not really getting anywhere, are we?

Mike

I was trying to think period, and given that way of looking at it, "Affection" might work. Archaically, an affection is potentially a negative thing, and gender neutral. Just thinking out loud.

Mike

Hey,

As I'm sure folks can imagine, I've been thinking about this terminology issue quite a bit. What do people think of the following:

An NPC the minion is connected to is a Significant. So, during chargen, the player specifies "the nature of connections the minion has to two Significants."

The act of attempting to get Love from a Significant is an Overture, described in the explanatory rule text as "an overture of emotional risk."

Paul

Sounds like it's missing the Other part, and that sounds too modern.

How about an archetype reference. Call them "Esmereldas" or something.

Mike