Re: Nested Relationships

From: Ian Young <ian.d.young_at_...>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:10:27 -0000


Trotsky wrote:

> Anyway, the question arises because, in character generation, you
> gain some Relationships as part of your keyword. 'To Clan', for
> instance, if you're a Heortling. So, barring any extra expenditure,
> they're at 17. Whereas, a character might have a Relationship to a
> particular character, as part of their 100 word write-up. So that
> starts at 13. But, let's say the individual character is a member
> of the clan. Doesn't that mean that the relationship you
> specifically mentioned in your write-up is *weaker* than to
> everyone else in the clan?

I can't recall this coming up in play yet, but this is how I'd interpret it. The ratings of To Clan 17 versus To Bob 13 amount to the responsibilities to a community versus to an individual. Bob, benefitting from a personal relationship rating is more important than any other single member of the clan, but the interests of the clan as a whole trump Bob. This sort of thing comes up regularly in real life, particularly among more traditional communities -- say, belonging to an orthodox faith, but falling in love with someone outside of your religion.

Now, here's a twister for you, how this sort of thing comes up in play. Let's say Bob proposes that you and he set forth on a course of adventure that isn't in the clan's best interest, that may even do some harm to the community as a whole, though perhaps not to any particular individual. Suddenly it's To Bob vs To Clan. If Bob had had the clan's interests at heart, then I'd rule To Clan 17 as the attribute to use in any related contest. If Bob had only his own interests in mind, but his proposal didn't involve the clan in any way, then it'd be your relationship of To Bob 13 that would come into play in any related contest. It would have to be an awfully extenuating circumstance to let one relationship augment the other, and I can't think of a good example off hand.

!i!

>
> Well, OK, presumably not. But why not? Where's the flaw in the
> reasoning? Would you, perhaps, when dealing with Bob the Clansman,
use
> Relationship to Clan, and then Relationship to Bob as an augment to
> that? Or are the two Relationships used for entirely different sorts
> of things? Or something else?
>
> I'm interested to see how others handle it, before making a ruling
in
> my own game.
>
> --
> Trotsky
> Gamer and Skeptic
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>

Powered by hypermail