Hey'all.

There's one thing that causes me trouble when considering various relationship mechanics. Though I'm not 100% familiar with the game HeroQuest (or HeroWars) I'll bring it up as an example for the discussion. There certain key relationships of the character can be quantified in a trait that allows relationships to be used mechanistically.

What disturbs me is that to me this sets a precedent that all relationships should be dealt with in this manner. What is to distinguish my relation to the local high priest for whom I have a quantified trait from the relation I have cultivated during game, via RP, to the high priest from out of town? The first is not dealt with the "usual means" -- not through the same type of RP and the use of skills -- while the latter is.

This discrepancy just sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

The implication seems to me that all relationships should be -- or at least could be -- reduced to a similar role, all handled under a system of relationship mechanics. While I'm not saying this would abolish RP, it would utterly change it's manner. The actual playing out of various relationships would be very different and I can't feel but that it would detract from the experience, perhaps placing (and enriching at its expense) the area of interest in some other area of play.

I know many here consider these kinds of mechanics state of the art and that's why I'm bringing this up. I'm hoping you can introduce me to a new way of looking at things or to correct what may a mistaken view at the subject.

- Joachim Buchert -

I'm completely puzzled by your question. What leads you to think that ones interaction with the local priest is handled purely through game mechanics simply because it has a quantified number while ones interaction with the other priest is handles purely through RP simply because there are no quantified numbers. I think you're bringing an unwarranted assumption into the question.

Lets say your character in any RPG has, through his previous interaction with Father Johan has develeped an irrational fear of the man. Now Johan is attempting to convice the town leadership to take a course of action that you think is a bad idea, and you want to convince the town otherwise.

The GM decides this will require an opposed roll between your persuasion and Father Johan's to see who convinces the town (or whatever other game mechanics the particular game uses). At this point the GM would be completely within his reason to say "You know Joachim, you've been playing your character as if he's completely frightened of Johan, and now you're directly confronting him. I think your fear of the Father translates into a -3 penalty (or whatever) to your persuasion attempt.


Hero Wars works EXACTLY the same way, only now there is a number attached to the relationship such as "Profound Fear of Father Johan: 17". This simply serves to mechanically determine exactly how big a penelty is ascribed to such a situation. In another situation it might provide a bonus.

Does that help clarify?

Hi Joachim, good to hear from you again,

Keep in mind, to use Hero Quest as a continuing example, that all Abilities default to a 6. Therefore, you have a 6 relationship with everyone who's not on your sheet. So there is a uniformity in that way amongst how such things can be handled. (And before anyone protests, there would be an improvisational penalty applied to using it to get a Dragon to give you his gold or somesuch, which would make it a veru difficult roll; though it might be a lot easier still than trying to actually fight it).

But Ralph has a point in that somehow people assume that such mechanics obviate the need to role-play. What they may do is make it so that the player doesn't have to role-play particularly well. That is, if the character has an Ability of "Quick Witted", and the player doesn't deliver his argument in a quick-witted manner, then the player can still rely on the mechanics to save the character from the player's inadequacies, yes.

This goes back to a long standing debate about whether or not it's better to allow the character to be able to do things that the player cannot. To really extend the argument, one ought not be allowed to have one's character hit an opponent with his sword, unless the player can do so himself. That is, in boffer LARP, there are no skill levels with a sword, because it's player skill that counts (perhaps sugmented with some HP mechanics in some cases). In most RPGs, however, the character is allowed to have his skill with a sword substitute for player ability.

The point is that allowing mechanics to substitute for player skill is alllowable on some level. Now, in a Narrativist game, there really is no competition. It's not about the player winning or losing. And contrary to popular belief it doesn't have to do with playing the character well or anything like that (although that can contribute). So I could see, in fact, an entire game of Hero Quest being played entirely in the third person, "And then I convince the bartender to give me the location of the thieves' guild." I mean it's a bias to say that descriptive play is by default better in the first place. But let's assume it is for the remainder of the discussion.

Similarly I can see doing combat without description at all. But that's not encouraged. These games, in fact, do encourage the descriptive mode. So you do have to describe what you're saying in order to even get the roll. Or rather, and this is the interesting part, given that the game encourages FitM descriptions, in some cases, you ought to roll first, and then describe what happens in terms of the success or failure.

But, as with all resolution, the choice to use the system depends on whether or not the GM or players think a roll is needed. If the character is just asking for directions, then there's no conlfict, really, and the system doesn't need to be used. Well, this is very much true of most of these style of game, where the systems are defined as Conflict resolution. So, until there's some conflict, not just a task, but a Conflict, you don't use the resolution system, and have to "play out" what happens by standard forms of narration. So, in fact, you do end up playing out conversations and whatnot right up until the point at which a Conflict is identified.

Player : "So, Baor, where do the ne'erdowells in this town congregate after nightfall?"

GM as Baor the Barkeep: "How would I know?"

Player : "Come now, this is just the sort of establishment where such people come to drink. Surely you can tell me."

Barkeep: "I have no idea what you're talking about."

Player (now OOC): OK, I can see that he's not going to budge. I want to try to use my Relationship with him to get him to open up. I say, "C'mon, it's me, your old friend, you can trust me with the information."

GM looking at successful roll: "Alright, fine. They meet downstairs, actually, after dark. But you didn't hear it from me."

So, where in the example did the "role-playing" (by which we assume you mean first person representation of the character) get replaced by the mechanic? It's just not a problem in play. You can use these mechanics and not have to abandon any sort of description at all.

Mike

Valamir wrote:

What leads you to think that ones interaction with the local priest is handled purely through game mechanics simply because it has a quantified number while ones interaction with the other priest is handles purely through RP simply because there are no quantified numbers. I think you're bringing an unwarranted assumption into the question.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Keep in mind, to use Hero Quest as a continuing example, that all Abilities default to a 6.

Mike Holmes wrote:

But Ralph has a point in that somehow people assume that such mechanics obviate the need to role-play. What they may do is make it so that the player doesn't have to role-play particularly well. That is, if the character has an Ability of "Quick Witted", and the player doesn't deliver his argument in a quick-witted manner, then the player can still rely on the mechanics to save the character from the player's inadequacies, yes.

Hi Joachim,

If the newly developed relationship is important to you, then you spend the currency on it.

That's what the relationship trait is for. It represents how important the relationship is to you; that is to say, how much you want it to influence play in the future. The currency you spend to create the trait is your assertion of its importance to you (perhaps to your character as well, but definitely to you).

This is no different from relationships the character starts out with. In most of the types of system in question here, you spend currency for those too. Currency is (by definition) limited because not everything can be important at the same time. ("Important" here doesn't mean merely not utterly trivial or forgettable; it means it's something you want to spend future play time focusing your own and others' attention on. Currency is limited, ultimately, because play time is limited.)

So, your objection appears to come down to wanting the relationship trait "for free" if the relationship it refers to comes about through play. But since spending the currency represents your assertion that it's important, not being willing to spend the currency implies that it's not important to you. And if it's not important to you, why do you care whether the trait or the relationship exists or not?

Spending the currency is exercising your right to choose what's important. How would you feel if a GM took your character concept in a direction you didn't intend or approve of, by saddling the character with "free" relationship traits to NPCs and causes that you're not interested in, just because they came about through play? Fortunately, a GM cannot do this, because you control the currency. Inside the game world, you can regard this as representing that whatever happens to your character, your character still has his own viewpoint, his own emotional filters for how he interprets the meaning of the evolving situation. In other words, the character may or may not care about any particular thing. The relationship trait doesn't just mean the relationship exists, it means that the character cares about it. On the metagame level, it means that you care about it. (That the character cares is not absolutely necessary; that you care is. That's why you're the one holding the purse strings.)

Do the relationship trait mechanics make any more sense to you in that light?

- Walt

Walt Freitag wrote: Currency is (by definition) limited because not everything can be important at the same time. ("Important" here doesn't mean merely not utterly trivial or forgettable; it means it's something you want to spend future play time focusing your own and others' attention on. Currency is limited, ultimately, because play time is limited.)

Walt Freitag wrote: On the metagame level, it means that you care about it. (That the character cares is not absolutely necessary; that you care is. That's why you're the one holding the purse strings.)

Walt Freitag wrote: And if it's not important to you, why do you care whether the trait or the relationship exists or not?

Walt Freitag wrote: Inside the game world, you can regard this as representing that whatever happens to your character, your character still has his own viewpoint, his own emotional filters for how he interprets the meaning of the evolving situation. In other words, the character may or may not care about any particular thing. The relationship trait doesn't just mean the relationship exists, it means that the character cares about it.

Walt Freitag wrote: Spending the currency is exercising your right to choose what's important. How would you feel if a GM took your character concept in a direction you didn't intend or approve of, by saddling the character with "free" relationship traits to NPCs and causes that you're not interested in, just because they came about through play?

To be very generic, let's assume at the on-set of play I had one relationship that was defined as a trait. Later, during play through actions I acquire a relationship exactly similar to the one I had at the beginning. However, (depending on the system) usually without spending some type of currency, this relationship will not represented in the same way. Within the IC world, there is no difference. On my character sheet, there is a difference.

but what I care is secondary to what the character cares (or to what the IC reality of the matter is). When I play, I sort of become subordinate to the character. This type of semi-irrational emphasis on the character seems a trait of the type of play I enjoy.

Joachim--

The crux of my post was more in the realm of why are certain relationships quantified in mechanics while others are not?

It seems the spending of currency is a matter of importance. Importance to whom, is my next and most important question?

but what I care is secondary to what the character cares (or to what the IC reality of the matter is).

This maybe my Turku School bent showing (hell, I'm only 200km from Turku!), but what I care is secondary to what the character cares (or to what the IC reality of the matter is). When I play, I sort of become subordinate to the character. This type of semi-irrational emphasis on the character seems a trait of the type of play I enjoy.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Ralph, and Josh, the fact that you can't understand the perspective doesn't make Joachim wrong.

Daredevil wrote: For me, this results in the mechanics being imposing just a bit too far, being almost restrictive rather than empowering. They constrict my view of the character (or should I say, my channeling of the character). For example, if in my view a new relationship should be utterly important to the character, but at that moment I just happen to be out of currency (practically or theoretically), there is no way I can truly depict my character.

I think this turned out to be more interesting than I thought.

I'd like to point a few things out for clarity.

First, while I share certain traits with the Turku school, I'd hesitate to say that I am 'of the Turku school'. We're neighbours (physically as well philosophically), nothing more. It is entirely likely that it has something to do with the general Finnish mindset or approach towards affairs of the imagination. Indeed, to make it sound fancy, this may be a result of us being closer to our mythic origins and past, in some ways perhaps a form of modern shamanism. It has more to do with our "myths being alive" than playing a syndicated tv series.

Secondly, it is important to note that I'm not saying one thing is worse than the other on a universal scale. This might be obvious but bears writing out. I can understand and even value the "other way" of role-playing on this thread, I could even play in a game like that (and certainly our -- and your? -- style of play fluctutates between this and that), but given the choice it is not my preference.

Valamir wrote: Literature and movies are full of discardable relationships. TV, whose episodic nature often provides an even better parallel to RPGs is even more so. Where is the "best bud" from episode 3, 10 episodes later? How come the guy whose life was saved in episode 5 is never heard from again even though the episode ended with a "we'll have to get together soon". Those relationships were meaningful and important ONLY in that specific situation at that specific time and place.

Valamir wrote: Sorry. Characters are pencil scribblings on a piece of paper. No RPG character has ever cared about anything...ever. They don't exist. They are figments of the imagination and so can not, ever, exist independently of the person portraying them.

Valamir wrote: In games of this type, there is almost never a time when you will be without the currency required. No properly run Hero Wars game should ever enter the situation where in character play indicates a potential relationship, the player wants to cement it and doesn't have any points. At the very least the GM extends the credit on it.

joshua neff wrote: Personally, I look at all character traits the same way, regardless of game. If a PC has, say, Chess as a quantified skill on her sheet, that's 1) the Player saying she wants chess to come into play at some point & for her character to be involved & 2) the Player establishing that her PC has some skill at chess. Let's say the Chess trait is bought after a few sessions of play. Does this mean the PC never knew how to play chess before & now does? Not necessarily to me. It could be that it's just never come up before. (I tend to think of it in terms of a TV series or comic series. "Wolverine, I didn't know you spoke Japanese." "You never asked.") I tend to look at any trait on a character sheet as #1 (what the Player wants) first & #2 (what the PC can do) second.

Mike Holmes wrote: But I see a different problem. I thought that I'd remembered that you were from the Turku school of thought in the previous post, and that's the reason I addressed the things I did. That is, it's a first person issue for the Turku. A relationship mechanic tends to require some drop from first person to an extent to do things that in most Turku play don't require the drop.

Mike Holmes wrote: That is, to put it in terms that you might be better able to understand, putting your mind in a set where you feel that you are prioritizing the "feelings" of some fictional character, though not actually possible, does provide some players with a particular feeling that can't be obtained otherwise. I know because I've felt it as well. The feeling is often termed "Immersion", but that's problematic as the term has been co-opted by people who want to say that the feeling doesn't exist. But let me assure you that it does, whatever it's called.

Mike Holmes wrote: (If we want to get into what the particular feeling is like we can probably take that to a new thread. But it's basically a real form of mysticism, IMO.)

Mike Holmes wrote: Because it's my experience that all players can have enjoyment playing in any style of play. It only takes an open mind. That is, I'd suggest that you come to playing a game of Hero Quest with more of the idea that you're an author of sorts than a channeler of characters. It will be different, and maybe less enjoyable than your prefered style, but not unenjoyable.

I am similar to Joachim in that I don't care for relationship mechanics. I have now played Hero Quest and used the relationship mechanics in it, though I don't have extensive experience.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now, that all said, I think that people are missing the essential point. Because for all it's metagamey power, the relationship mechanics are, as I've pointed out, not too damaging to in-game suspension of disbelief for most Sim gamers. This high level of Congruence is very satisfying for a player like myself.

Mike Holmes wrote: But I see a different problem. I thought that I'd remembered that you were from the Turku school of thought in the previous post, and that's the reason I addressed the things I did. That is, it's a first person issue for the Turku. A relationship mechanic tends to require some drop from first person to an extent to do things that in most Turku play don't require the drop.

Again, however, I find this a tad ironic as, for example, all combat requires a drop out of first person.

First of all -

. . . it is important to note that I'm not saying one thing is worse than the other on a universal scale. This might be obvious but bears writing out.

Hey, I'm not trying to say the Turku school is bad or "wrong." Whatever people are happy doing, as long as it doesn't hurt others or infringe on my own enjoyment is cool with me. (That goes from the "neighbors to Turku" character immersion, too.) And I pretty much agree with everything you said, Mike--if immersion (or "channelling") is of primary importance to you & metagame mechanics (or to be more precise, mechanics that jar you out of immersion, since as you noted, Mike, many mechanics move you out of Actor stance), then yeah, relationship mechanics may ring false. I also agree that this could be missing out on a lot of fun, but hey, whatever.

As for the "continuity" aspect. Joachim, you may see these as undesireable aspects of TV culture. It's true that one reason why I'm not bothered by leaps & contradictions in continuity is that I grew up reading DC comics & watching Doctor Who, neither of which at the time were all that concerned with consistent continuity. I find consistent continuity to be...well, jarring. It seems unrealistic to me. Plus, I'm completely unconcerned with fiction being "realistic." Myth, legend, folk tale--these are rarely consistent in continuity. Greek myths contradict the hell out of each other. Try doing research into the history of Ireland & coming away with a consistent tale. So for me, consistent continuity seems a-mythic, & I rather like myth. Again, it's personal preference.

As for Strength being "quantifiable" but a relationship not--I'm tempted to say this is more a matter of RPG history than it is a given. For me, saying "I have a Strength of 18" means absolutely nothing, except in the context of the game. "A Strength of 18 means I can lift this much." Oh, okay, got it. So if Relationships are quantified by the same scale--as they are in HeroQuest--it makes as much sense to me. "I have Sword & Shield Fighting at 17--& I have Loves My Family at 17." In HQ, those mean the same thing--you have the same chance of succeeding or failing on either roll.

Two random things:

1. This seems awfully like the Champions conundrum of 'why do I have to pay points for a laser gun instead of just taking one from the bad guy and keeping it?'

2. Dav Gets Immersive in a game with quite a relationship mechanic.

joshua neff wrote: I find consistent continuity to be...well, jarring. It seems unrealistic to me. Plus, I'm completely unconcerned with fiction being "realistic." Myth, legend, folk tale--these are rarely consistent in continuity. Greek myths contradict the hell out of each other. Try doing research into the history of Ireland & coming away with a consistent tale. So for me, consistent continuity seems a-mythic, & I rather like myth. Again, it's personal preference.

joshua neff wrote: As for Strength being "quantifiable" but a relationship not--I'm tempted to say this is more a matter of RPG history than it is a given. For me, saying "I have a Strength of 18" means absolutely nothing, except in the context of the game. "A Strength of 18 means I can lift this much." Oh, okay, got it. So if Relationships are quantified by the same scale--as they are in HeroQuest--it makes as much sense to me.

Jeff Klein wrote: 1. This seems awfully like the Champions conundrum of 'why do I have to pay points for a laser gun instead of just taking one from the bad guy and keeping it?'

As relationships in HeroQuest can be used to gain augments directly, in the same way that Pendragon passions grant inspiration bonuses, or indirectly through Community Support, they are given numeric values. HeroQuest quantifies relationships for precisely the same reason as Pendragon quantifies personality traits and passions: if it can have a metagame (i.e., mechanics-oriented) impact on the game, it needs some value associated with it.

Speaking as a Hero Wars playtester, the design rationale grows out of Robin Laws' intent to model outcomes rather than processes. A contest in HeroQuest (as in Hero Wars) tells you the outcome, leaving the explanation of how that outcome occurred to the players and narrator to create together. It is this which is the source of HeroQuest's great mechanical versatility, allowing for equally dramatic combats, legal debates or efforts to bring in the harvest before winter arrives.

To use the example of Baor the Barkeep: the player may not know that, during a mid-game break, the narrator rolled the hero's Friend of Baor the Barkeep 17 versus a difficulty which represents Baor's reticence based on his knowledge of what happened to the last person who told an outsider where the thieves' guild holds its meetings (let's call it 10W... W here substituting for the Mastery rune). On a defeat or a tie, Baor would not tell his friend anything. On a marginal or minor victory, Baor would indicate that he did in fact know but feared what might happen to either himself, his family or the hero. On a major or complete victory, Baor would tell the hero exactly what he wanted to know, guild be damned!

Daredevil wrote:

Valamir wrote: In games of this type, there is almost never a time when you will be without the currency required. No properly run Hero Wars game should ever enter the situation where in character play indicates a potential relationship, the player wants to cement it and doesn't have any points. At the very least the GM extends the credit on it.

This explanation seems to rob the mechanics and related currency of much of their worth. Why is there a currency or a mechanic in the first place, if they're essentially powerless? In my view, the mechanic could be made more elegant before allowed into play.

RaconteurX wrote: Speaking as a Hero Wars playtester, the design rationale grows out of Robin Laws' intent to model outcomes rather than processes.

Valamir wrote: In games of this type, there is almost never a time when you will be without the currency required. No properly run Hero Wars game should ever enter the situation where in character play indicates a potential relationship, the player wants to cement it and doesn't have any points. At the very least the GM extends the credit on it.
...
Similarly currency in the game works like this. If you rely on the scarcity of game currency to give it value than you're likely to see most of it just getting spent on basic "character advancement" needs. If, on the other hand, you give out the currency generously, you can then observe the choices the players make as they decide what is or isn't important.

Valamir wrote: In wargaming this is often called Design for Effect rather than Design for Cause.

This post is mostly in response to John's latest, and again I don't think it's anything I haven't already said here, but . . . let me try one more angle on this:

Spending points on a relationship can only be in some way "like" losing XP if the nature of a realtionship and the other things you might spend points on are fundamentally different. If the overall effectiveness of a character who spends points on relationships is essentially the same as that of a player who doesn't (and instead spends them elsewhere) - there's no "loss" here. In one case, you have the advantage of the realtionship(s), and in the other, you have some other adavantage. Good systems that include relationships in a particular mechanic/method (it seems to me) will maintain some form of congruence between the realtionship and other aspects of the system.

So again, I say the issue is really whether or not you are you are willing to treat a relationship as basically the same thing as, say, a sword skill, within the context of a particular rule system. It can be done, but it might not be to some people's taste. That doesn't make it equivalent to an XP penalty in any way I can see, though.

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Spending points on a relationship can only be in some way "like" losing XP if the nature of a realtionship and the other things you might spend points on are fundamentally different. If the overall effectiveness of a character who spends points on relationships is essentially the same as that of a player who doesn't (and instead spends them elsewhere) - there's no "loss" here.

John Kim wrote:
That depends on what you compare it to. I was specifically comparing it to the case of a game where relationships do not cost any currency points. In this case, there is a relative loss. Yes, relationships can have value. However, in the other system, that value was given as a consequence of in-character play -- i.e. as extras or "freebies". To reproduce this effect in HeroQuest, the GM could always gave you a special Hero Point only usable to cement that relationship every time that you developed a relationship through in-character play.

For a more Sim player like myself, if there's no Relationship listed on the character sheet, there's no relationship. No "freebies" exist, IMO, in Hero Quest.

Now, I can already hear the cries that a HQ character has too few relationships on their character sheet to be plausible. But I completely disagree. Each HQ character will automatically have a relationship with his entire tribe, clan, or whathave you. These represent a huge variety of relationships. The ones listed on the sheet are the ones that have particular value for the character above this level.

Everybody else in the world you have a score of 6 with. That's a rule. So nobody is being forgotten.

Now, is this a tad abstract? Yes, neccessarily so. The system handles everything with this level of abstraction. That said, it provides the most complete and plausible cataloguing of character abilities that I've yet seen. If it ain't on the sheet, the character ain't got it (DIP aside).

Now, I can create temporary relationships all I want in play. Just as I can create temporary equipment ala Champions. I can even assign it a score for the nonce. But in order to have it be permenant, I have to pay for it, Cement it with a HP. If I don't the same thing happens to that temporary equipment happens to the relationship. It dissolves.

This is not to enforce genre, neccessarily (though I'll get back to that in a second). It's very strictly for game balance. Let me say that again, these rules are metagame for balance. That is, if I were allowed to keep relationships and equipment or any other ability without paying, then my character becomes more powerful/interesting than other characters. HP are a resource that limits this. But where's the Congruence?

Well, John mentioned that it already makes sense for equipment. But, in fact, I can't think of anything more ephemeral in life than relationships. That guy you used to work with who you swore you'd keep in touch with? Why don't you talk to him now? Lot's of possible in-game reasons, but, mechanically, it's because you didn't pay the HP. And like equipment, you have to explain how you lose touch. In a more metaphysical way, all things are ephemeral if one doesn't take care with them. Think of Hero Points as Care Points. That the hero only keeps what he cares about. That's so in-genre for long-term play, I can't even explain how ecstatic I am that the idea exists.

So, again, I really don't see the problem. If you can accept the metagame idea that you have to pay for equipment (and I can understand if that's your gripe right there), then I think you ought to be able to see how it applies overall. And I'd agree that seeing equipment or stats as different from relationships is mostly a result of tradition. Let's put strength aside as an example: can you say that Wisdom is something that makes more sense to rate by number than a relative rating of the strength of a relationship? Swordsmandship skill? Painting ability? Give me a system, and I'll come up with something in it that it rates that's as least as abstract as relationships. Heck, what is Cosmopolitan other than a manual for determining the statistical value of your relationship? Probably a guy thing to see it this way. ;-)

Mike

contracycle wrote: By implication, any mechanism which exists uniquely in a particular game is "unfair" because it requires spending that would not be required in other games. Thats nonsensical - if there is a point cost economy in the game, then one can assume that the range of spending expected has been accomodated in the initial point provision by the designer. That is what the the system was built to do.

contracycle wrote: Anyway, I suggest a rather more important role for personality/social mechanics - establishing the relationship in the game space. Those "freebie" relationships are only "freebie" becuase there is no way to really use them. The players own opinion of their relationship, and its degree of reciprocation, may not be recognised by the GM and this may lead to discord. It may be considered unfair to use a relationship that is not mechanically represented, and does require spending, to obtain an in game benefit - this may be seen as exploitative beheviour. Establishing a rtelationship in the mechanics makes it much less nebulous for the shared vision, thus much more useable/useful, thus more likely to be important to play IMO.

One thing that doesn't sit well with me about relationships being all bound up in currency is that I don't think I like the idea of relationships being a measure of effectiveness.

See, for me, the change in relationships are a primary source of conflict. The Duke hates you, Boar asks you for a favor, PC 1 hates PC 2. It's not a measure of effectiveness like a sword skill is, it's what drives play as it changes. One should be stable, the other mercurial. Two completely different logics. Affixing currency to relationships deprives them of some of their mutability, subtly and surprise; it implies stability. A relationship with Boar of 17, is a good friend 17, not a 'good friend until he finds out you're the brother of the man who killed his wife who he'll now swear a blood oath to slay but be unable to follow through with because you once saved his life'. I suppose you could say "Well sure it could be, that's just description of the trait", but in order to do this currency would have to be flying all over the place; mucking up (that's a technical term) the point of play.

That said, I've got no beef with relationship mechanics that are not tied to currency, then it's just a visual aid of sorts for the player - relationship notes. We're actually using something like this: compatibility. Just a rating you jot down measuring how much you like or dislike each other PC. It effects the potency of kewl power super combos on the pro side and reflects a difficulty to oppose contributing to a kewl power super combo on the con side. Adjust as you see fit, normally after each session.

In Hero Quest, it's legitimate for Abilities to shift fairly rapidly in various ways.

If that's not enough, however, in my Synthesis system changing your ratings is the whole point of the resolution system (no surprise as I just ported it over from Universalis, which in which Traits are similarly labile). So, yes, in every conflict the relationship trait will mechanically change to represent the in-game occurances.

John, in both Hero Quest and Synthesis (and I'm sure other systems), Relationships have exactly the same mechanical potence as other stats. So having Swordsman 17 is no different mechanically from having Bob 17. They both give you exactly the same amount of power to affect things in game. So nothing is inherently "worth" more than anything else. If you buy Swordsmanship, that means it's actually worth more to you as a player for your character to have that. If you buy Bob, that indicates that's more important.

Everything in the game is at the same level of abstraction, too, so that one stat has to do for combat as well. If you want it to be handled in little detail, you do a Simple Conflict. If you want to handle either a physical or a relationship fight in more detail, you do an extended Conflict. I can only report that this works extrmemely well. Assuming an ability to deal with FitM.

Mike

I think we are flailing somewhat thruogh references to a specific system and simultaneously trying to discuss this in the broad. It is highly significant that HW/HQ is FiTM.

As Mike says, Bob 17 and Sword 17 are mechanically identical. Now this does not mean thatthe relationship is fixed, to address Cruciels point. Whatqwe know is that the mechanical impact of the relationship is 17, we do not know whattheactual relationships between Bob and the character is. Nor do we need to *for resolution purposes* for the most part.

What we know is how impact-ful the relationship (or sword skill) is to the character or the world. We can decide in any given case whether or not the relationship or skill has an impact here and now on the present situation. Bob 17 can be used both as a tool (I can manipulate Bob because he likes me to the degree of 17 in 20) and as a problem (Bob can manipulate me becuase I like him to the degree of 17 in 20).

So the rating is measuring impact on play rather than being a normative description of anyones behaviour. Failing to cement a relationship does not mean that you necessarily lose touch or the other character is driven away - they are just not going to feature in play. They may have a wonderful relationship with the PC - it just happens off screen. Failing to keep in touch is just a good and useful answer to the question at the END of FITM, which is, How?

To return to the keeping equipment example - I am one to whom keeping the gear would definately appear to be exploitative. I would mount arguments to th effect that this does not occur in superhero literature by default becuase doing so would anduermine any given characters schtick; that Spiderman could well do with taking home a bit of Doc Oc's tentacles or the Hobgoblins sled but this never happens (overthe long term). I would interpreta violation of this genre convention as unconducive toa good game of that nature: in factthis verty problem plaguedthe few attempts I made at the genre. To kill them and take their stuff is just to D&D with your pants on the outside.

The extension of this principle beyond the specific genre was IMO brilliant. It allow the consistent mechanical application of a relationship to play without much concern with the content of the relationship. The rating is a measure of play significance and that alone. Under this specific game contract, NO spending points to cement is a signal that the characteror tool or what have you indicates it is deemed Unimportant by the player, regardless of the characters opinion. Conversely, cementing something or someone is a signal by the player that that this item is Important to future play.

Hi John,

Your analogy of paying to cement relationships being equivalent to the GM reducing the player's XP unless the player acts in-game to negate the potential relationship doesn't hold up. The type of relationship mechanism we're talking about never requires the player to alienate or drive away or otherswise negate the relationship. The player can cement the relationship or not. Not doing so does not require or dictate or imply any action on the player-character's part. It doesn't mean the relationship disappears, it means it remains under the GM's control. (Or under whatever other form of shared control the game normally uses, but let's assume it's the GM's control for the sake of argument.) The GM can allow the relationship to fade into the background, or alter its nature (e.g. by betrayal), or use it as fodder for deus ex machina plot twists, or have the subject(s) wiped out off-camera, or whatever. (The same is also, often, true of "freebie" relationships in systems where relationships are not backed up by currency mechanics, as Gareth [contracycle] pointed out.)

Describing the currency spent on a relationship as "penalizing" the player is also overstating. I could, for instance, say that the guy who sold me a new suit has "penalized" my bank account, but others might wonder why I've described my choice to buy the suit in such a peculiar way.

Look at the choice of paying XPs for the relationship this way:

GM: Your character has become involved in an interesting new relationship. Do you want to make that relationship an important part of who your character is, and something that you want to make sure continues as an important plot element of the evolving situation in the future?

PLAYER: Um, no.

GM: Okay, I'll give you some points that you can spend later on some other interesting new thing for your character instead.

- Walt

So, if relationships are adjustable on the fly, that says to me the currency isn't a limited resource. Man, I'm repeating someone now, I'm sure of it.

If the currency isn't a limited resource, then it doesn't serve game balance in the traditional sense. It could serve a game balance-esque purpose in providing a general measure of effectiveness of a character that you can use to compare to other characters (Bob is better than Sally because he has more points); just some way for the players to quantify who's better than who, so they have a scaling guideline. Which I'm perfectly peachy with as a purpose for currency - it's how I use it. But, that isn't typically how currency is viewed.

If the currency is a limited resource that circles back around to my original problem with it implying stability.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now, is this a tad abstract? Yes, neccessarily so. The system handles everything with this level of abstraction. That said, it provides the most complete and plausible cataloguing of character abilities that I've yet seen. If it ain't on the sheet, the character ain't got it (DIP aside).

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, John mentioned that it already makes sense for equipment. But, in fact, I can't think of anything more ephemeral in life than relationships. That guy you used to work with who you swore you'd keep in touch with? Why don't you talk to him now? Lot's of possible in-game reasons, but, mechanically, it's because you didn't pay the HP. And like equipment, you have to explain how you lose touch.
...
So, again, I really don't see the problem. If you can accept the metagame idea that you have to pay for equipment (and I can understand if that's your gripe right there), then I think you ought to be able to see how it applies overall.

Mike Holmes wrote: And I'd agree that seeing equipment or stats as different from relationships is mostly a result of tradition. Let's put strength aside as an example: can you say that Wisdom is something that makes more sense to rate by number than a relative rating of the strength of a relationship? Swordsmandship skill? Painting ability? Give me a system, and I'll come up with something in it that it rates that's as least as abstract as relationships.

Your assumption is that to abstract something in game terms is to neccessarily handle it in the abstract in-game. But the systems in question don't do that. They, in fact, require detailed descriptions of outcomes of Conflicts of the resolution systems. I've heard some of the most realistic and detailed descriptions of combat using the same abstractions. And the use in terms of relationships has only served to introduce them in more detail, not less.

In any case, to not have any system is to handle the relationship entirely in the abstract. That's how you're doing it in your game. You can't have it both ways. Or are you saying that by having system for your combat in RQ that you're abstracting it?

Mechanics, no mechanics, it's all just system, and a way to come up with what happens in-game (Lumpley Principle). How you do it is only a matter of preference.

And it's a valid preference. I've only argued that the other side is valid as well, which is the only point in contention here. So we're not really disagreeing apparently.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: In any case, to not have any system is to handle the relationship entirely in the abstract. That's how you're doing it in your game. You can't have it both ways. Or are you saying that by having system for your combat in RQ that you're abstracting it?

Mike Holmes wrote: Mechanics, no mechanics, it's all just system, and a way to come up with what happens in-game (Lumpley Principle). How you do it is only a matter of preference.

And it's a valid preference. I've only argued that the other side is valid as well, which is the only point in contention here. So we're not really disagreeing apparently.

Mike Holmes wrote: Your assumption is that to abstract something in game terms is to neccessarily handle it in the abstract in-game. But the systems in question don't do that. They, in fact, require detailed descriptions of outcomes of Conflicts of the resolution systems. I've heard some of the most realistic and detailed descriptions of combat using the same abstractions. And the use in terms of relationships has only served to introduce them in more detail, not less.

John Kim wrote: I do not have a mechanic which assigns a semi-permanent number to each relationship to be written down on the character sheet. There is still method to what happens in relationships in Vinland.

John Kim wrote: It seems strange to me that adding a single number to rate a relationship would result in more detail for it.

John Kim wrote: I certainly didn't experience that in my admittedly brief HeroQuest play.

RaconteurX wrote:

John Kim wrote: I do not have a mechanic which assigns a semi-permanent number to each relationship to be written down on the character sheet. There is still method to what happens in relationships in Vinland.

The method, however, can be said to be completely arbitrary. If you as narrator need a relationship to sour, there is very little the player can do to gainsay your decision. In HeroQuest, it is the player who decides, through investment of game currency, whether (and to what extent) a relationship is important to the hero. I find that this makes narrating far easier, as I can rely on my players to provide vital cues to the direction they would like to see the story take by examining their expenditure of Hero Points.

RaconteurX wrote: Whereas RuneQuest made us think about the importance of culture, HeroQuest goes one step further and asks us to consider the importance of community. The relationship mechanics derive from what I imagine we can all agree is the most central theme of Glorantha, drawn from the archetypal hero's journey of which Greg is so fond: individual as embodiment of his or her community. Surely you would not suggest that so vital a setting element be ignored in the rules?

John Kim wrote: If you keep the mechanic but allow the GM to have some control -- for example, to say that killing your own follower causes another to run away -- then this ultimately comes down to GM judgement just like in my case. The veneer of the number doesn't mean much since the GM is capable of changing the number.

John Kim wrote: You seem to be arguing in favor of relationships being controlled strictly by Hero Points and player choice. i.e. If the PC has a fight with someone he has a relationship with, the player still controls the relationship number. You as GM have no say. Relationship numbers are thus unlikely to change based on varying events....

If you keep the mechanic but allow the GM to have some control -- for example, to say that killing your own follower causes another to run away -- then this ultimately comes down to GM judgement just like in my case. The veneer of the number doesn't mean much since the GM is capable of changing the number.

M. J. Young wrote: We do have a sort of relationship mechanic in Multiverser, specifically related to what we call associates, but which could be called followers or henchmen or a dozen other things.

The basic rule is that there is a check for the principle (who presumably is a player character) and one for the associate (who presumably is not).
...
So it is an objective character relationship mechanic, but it is only put in play when a subjective determination has been made by the referee that the player character has not maintained his end of the relationship. In a sense, it provides a way to settle the question of whether the player character has been "nice enough" to the NPC or not, without giving that decision entirely to either the player or the referee.

Does that meet your criteria?

Lots of opinions here, but I feel we are missing something important.

Given: Relationships are, by nature, unpredictable. A sword skill doesn't get worse if you don't buy it flowers. Even a love of ten years could, and has, forsaken people within a very short time. But this probadly isn't the result of random chance, but it may be uncontrollable (by the PC).
Presumption: Relationships can be bough with Hero Points, experience, or whatever else.
Point: What happens when that relationship dies? Do you "refund" the experience? Is it lost forever? Is that fair to the player?

I see nothing wrong with giving a relationship a numerical value, but if you are going to ask a player to pay for it with experience then they need some guarantee that the relationship is stable, which is not realistic (the guarantee). The only thing a PC can be sure of is how (s)he feels about the NPC. And even that can change quite often.

Perhaps what Daredevel needs is a seperate relationship pool or bank that can be used to allocate points to different relatioships, but that can have points put back into the bank if a relationship goes sour. Or is that just replacing the problem with a new one?

OK, so we want relationships to be an important part of play. We can accomplish that (I'll claim) in many ways. Let's have some categories here:

1) The relationships are given some numerical representation in one or more parts of the game system. Hero Quest works this way.
2) The relationships are represented in the system in some particular, methodical way, but are not literally quantified. As far as I can tell, John's Vinland game works this way (the fact that his method is of his own devising and not explictly part of a published system is unimportant to this analysis).
3) There is no specific method to deal with/manage/handle relationships. This does not mean relationships are system-less, under the Lumpley Principle use of System, just that the actual "system" used is non-numeric and non-methodical.
4) Relationships and/or the impact thereof do not occur in play. This one is mostly theoretical - I think you could almost always find something that fits in #3 - but for completeness, here it is.

I think we can all accept as given that a particular play group can succede in realtionship-heavy play in any of the first three descriptions (and maybe have fun in #44, if that's what turns 'em on). It seemed like Joachim was worried that #1 might in fact work AGAINST that, and sure, each description can have particular problems. They share some issues - like who has access to influencing the impact relationships have on play, and via what means? But they can all be overcome. The question, I guess, is HOW?

I and others have already covered why we think Joachim's concerns don't HAVE to be problematic under description #1. Equally, John points out why his system works for him. Neither approach invalidates the other, and at some level, it becomes a question of taste. The best we can hope for (I guess) is to help those who want to find a way past the concerns they have with a particular method to do so. Along which lines . . .

Aelios brings up a new concern - that (my paraphrase) if you allow the "effectiveness" granted by a numerically-quantified relationship to go away when the relationship does (as would happen in "reality"), what happens to the points that were "spent" on that relationship? Regaining points lost in such a way sounds like a fine solution to me. Note, though, that the whole "number on the relationship must reflect the current reality of the relationship" assumption is NOT one that HQ (and others) necessarily subscribe to. The relationship goes to hell - you could still USE that. A 10 year love affair ends - there's still a LOT of emotional energy there, for a long time, which the player/GM/group can use to inform why the "Leila-12" ranking still applies to that character.

Again - the HQ (and other) relationship method does not neccessarily mirror the reality of what's happening - it need only tell you what "source" a player is able to draw on in fueling their effectiveness. Why and how that fueling occurs can be entirely determined by the play group.

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: OK, so we want relationships to be an important part of play.
...
I think we can all accept as given that a particular play group can succeed in relationship-heavy play in any of the first three descriptions (and maybe have fun in #4, if that's what turns 'em on).

John, what kind of system do you use for your relationships?
I think I can safely assume you don't assign numerical values for each PC/NPC relaitonship. Do you jot down notes like "Melnir is falling in love with Silksif" and just play it by ear or do you have a more concrete method?

Aelios wrote: John, what kind of system do you use for your relationships? I think I can safely assume you don't assign numerical values for each PC/NPC relaitonship. Do you jot down notes like "Melnir is falling in love with Silksif" and just play it by ear or do you have a more concrete method?

John Kim wrote: I would think that the HQ relationship rules also make a difference. So I could use them and still have a relationship-heavy game, but it would be different from my earlier games. The approach in your post is that these are just different approaches towards the same goal. I suspect, however, that the goal is subtlely different. Relationships are important in HeroQuest, but I suspect they have a different focus and/or purpose than relationships in my Vinland game.

Aelios wrote: Given: Relationships are, by nature, unpredictable. A sword skill doesn't get worse if you don't buy it flowers. Even a love of ten years could, and has, forsaken people within a very short time. But this probadly isn't the result of random chance, but it may be uncontrollable (by the PC).
Presumption: Relationships can be bough with Hero Points, experience, or whatever else.
Point: What happens when that relationship dies? Do you "refund" the experience? Is it lost forever? Is that fair to the player?

I'd just like to mention that in HW/HQ there is not a one-to-one relationship between ratings and relationships. That is, a relationship value might describe a relationship with a group rather than an individual; or that a character might have multiple conflicting relationships with one individual. Or might have a relationship with a group and a separate relationship rating with an individual within that group. A character could have "loyalty to the king" and "hate the king" simultaneously, and would negotiate that conflict in play. And of course a given relationship does not have to be reciprocated.

This brings me to the issue join raised about relationships being with subordinates, in HW/HQ. Yes I'd agree, there is a tacit expectation that such relationships will be used to structure command authority; but the caveat is that of course in the game world/historical context, personal and political authority are indistinguishable.

I think its fair to say that the HW/HQ relationship mechanism is not primarily intended to conduct or manage the particular role the John was exploring. That said, in the Silksif/Melnir scenario, it would seem to me to have been totally appopriate to conduct that sequence, in a game using ratings, without revealing anythoing of Melnirs state of mind mechanically. Because of course there is a huge difference in whether Melnir has "Love Silksif 17" and "Hate Silksif 17", either of which COULD be explanations for his behaviour (the latter being of course being conspiratorial and manipulative). IOW, this is an aspect of Melnirs effectiveness that remains priviliged GM knowledge, or at least certainly can be so.

The relationship RATING only measures the subjective feelings between two people if that is what the relationship is described as rating. I raise this because Gordons post about categorising relationsyhips representation becuase it presumes that we know what the relationship is, and the issue is only whether it is realised mechanistically. But - as mentioned previously - we are using a specific system for reference and the peculiarities of that system need to be accounted for. So in realising that HW/HQ has its totally freeform text-based character generation system, it should be seen that a relationship can be almost anything at all, with anything at all. The result is that this game can do something almost no game can do: produce characters whose entire mechanical effectiveness is relationship based.

A character could be generated as clerk without a single representation of a physical ability, let alone a violent one. This is your classic paper-pusher: but they can potentially be just as effective, and just as mechanically represented, as more orthodox characters. It is merely that all their (discretionary) points will be located in various forms of relationships: healthy or unhealthy, equable or parasitic, manipulative or bureacratic or emotive.

For me, part of what makes the numerical rating of a relationship powerful in HQ (and similar) is just what contra said - the numerical part is only about the degree of effectiveness the player is able to bring to bear via the relationship, it does NOT describe any particular details about the relationship or characterize WHY they are able to use it for x amount of effectiveness. Anything I wrote that leads folks to think otherwise . . . I must've miscommunicated.

In the hope that that's clear,

Gordon

John Kim wrote: System came into the question through Whimsy Cards.