I would agree that if you have a named relationship (ie in 100 words
narrative) with a clanmate then the starting figure should be 17 IMO.
In my game, if an ability is named two or more times in different
keywords or whatever (could be in the 100 words) then I allow a +3
for each additional occurrence. I think Wilderness Survival is a good
example. Heortlings get it as a cultural thing, and Hunters get it in
the Hunter keyword. So all my Hunter Heortling Heroes start at
17+3=20 every time. If they mention hunting in their 100 words then
its 3W.
I am not sure whether this is expressly provided for in the rules,
so it might just be a house rule that I picked up from some other
place (all my books are in a box on a wardrobe at the moment.)
Rob
wrote:
>
> Trotsky on nested relationships:
> > I'm interested to see how others handle it, before making a
ruling in my
> own game.
>
> In your example, it'd definitely start at 17.
>
> Additionally, I use nested relationships as mini-keywords. That is,
you can
> raise your relationship to a group of people as normal and
relationships to
> everyone in the group will track that. You can also add to that by
spending
> at a 1HP:2Ability ratio for individual relationships. The ability
to soup up
> individual relationships is intentional. The nature of the
relationships can
> be whatever, so you hate one, love another, ignore the third and so
on.
>
> Sam.
>