Relationships

Relationships #

The most obvious kind of relation based on the name is, well, a relationship. I’m defining it in this case as a mechanical linkage between two entities - player characters, non-player characters, factions, concepts, etc - in fiction.

A relationship is a kind of resource, though in my imagining, not one that gets “spent” as such. Discrete means that a connection either exists or not, while Metered means that how strong the connection is matters.

I’m going to generally recommend Metered from 0-6 if you want to make a relationship system that has some mechanical teeth to it. This lets us interact with various Effect mechanics as a kind of roll-under. (Discrete works fine too but works better if it’s just one piece of the puzzle.) For each step in a relationship, it will be helpful to keep track of what incremented it.

Do I need this in my game? #

On some level, this can only make sense if your game gets something out of specifically focusing on characters, how they relate to each other, and the play that exists within that space. A lot could theoretically benefit from this.

There’s a lot of game concepts that don’t need this particular kind of focus, though. It’s perfectly reasonable and in many cases preferable to leave this more nebulous or less defined.

Valiant Horizon #

Valiant Horizon uses relationships because it’s very much about player characters learning about each other, themselves, the heroes that came before, and the setting as they become heroes.

Machinations of Court and Frame #

Machinations of Court and Frame uses relationships to intensify representatives of noble houses doing dramatic things with, to, and against each other and give them more heft.

What relationships are we mechanizing? #

You could map every single entity relationship out in a game extensively until you’re blue in the face, but that’s a lot of information and mechanics. When designing games, part of the intent involved is knowing what to care about specifically. So based on your game, figure out what you care about emphasizing in this manner. Options include:

  • Player characters and other player characters
  • Player characters and non-player characters
  • Player characters and factions
  • The overall group of player characters and either of the above.

You could also link non-player-character-related entities in this way, but be careful: that can get a bit tedious if it’s too deep. If a Narrator is ever in a position where they’d be rolling a relationship-based mechanic against themselves, it’s probably a bad idea.

Valiant Horizon #

Valiant Horizon invokes mechanical relationships between:

  • Player characters and each other.
  • Player characters and friendly non-player characters.

Machinations of Court and Frame #

Machinations of Court and Frame invokes mechanical relationships between:

  • Player characters and each other.
  • Player characters and factions.

What manner of relationship is this? #

One-way or two-way #

This isn’t just the idea that someone could not be that into you! Depending on what relation you’re mechanizing, a relationship can be one of learning from a friend, emnity towards a foe, and so on: that doesn’t necessarily go both ways.

In general I would recommend making one-way relationships your assumption, just because it adds a lot more texture and lets players make more choices overall. Nothing stopping you from doing two-way, of course.

Positive, Negative, or Complicated #

A positive relationship means that it’s friendly, or something similar. If it’s one-way, maybe it’s you getting to know the person better. A negative relationship means the opposite. A complicated relationship means both. Games can decide the direction of relationships.

In my view of what complicated relationships can be, these still almost always increase rather than decrease. This is because I think various acts don’t cancel each other out to a “neutral” state, but rather, it all gets added to a tally of a view of someone. This isn’t to say that the slate can’t get wiped clean if you do enough, but in that case, I would rather replace an experience than remove it.

Using Relationships #

Once you’ve established that there’s a linkage between two entities, the next step is figuring out what that means in play.

Mechanically this often comes out in one of the following ways.

  • Relationships can just kind of have an effect without any kind of roll, or by spending a resource.
  • For either discrete or metered, you can roll and take a appropriate Total. If you hit a threshold - 11+ normally, 9+ if what you want to do should be easier, 13+ if harder.
  • For metered, you can roll and take an Inverse Effect for the same effect - Inverse Mid normally, Inverse High if easier, Inverse Low harder - and compare it to the value of the relationship. If the die is lower, it works. If it’s equal, you can decide whether that means it doesn’t work or if it does something in between.

Overall Impression #

A very basic way to use this is just as a binary check: if a relationship exists/etc, the other party feels a certain way about you, or vice versa.

  • If you’re not rolling, this just is what it is.
  • This is a curious one if you’re rolling. It might be a roll to just see if you made an impression prior - 13+/inverse high if you only made a faint impression, 9+/inverse low if you did something that stood out - or if they’ve decided to not make a big thing of whatever impression they have of you, depending.
  • For metered, you can leverage the fact that you’re keeping track of what increments a relationship, because this creates a nice table filled with 1-6 entries. Roll a die when encountering the other entity: if it’s a slot that’s filled with an experience, that’s the most prominent thing on someone’s mind in this scene. (If a relationship is complicated, this can make a nice split!) If it’s not filled, depending on the setup, they might either not remember you or might be approaching the scene from a more neutral standpoint.

Pre-empt actions #

If you know someone well enough, you can use a relationship to react to something they did by interrupting and pre-empting it, either to aid or to hinder. Typically this kind of thing happens after something is declared but before it’s resolved, but sometimes it’s fun to be able to take back an action entirely after finding out how it goes down. The effect of this could be minimal (like a little bonus or mitigating the risk on a poor roll) or drastic (a huge bonus, an auto-success/failure, cancellation of the action entirely).

  • This is probably a headache if not rolling unless it’s something specific and low-impact.
  • For rolling, easier means pre-empting more obvious or slow actions, while harder means faster or more subtle actions.

Provoke actions #

Conversely, if you know someone well enough, you can more easily get them to do something you want, for better or worse. For friendly relationships, this might be a matter of subtly asking or signalling them to do something. For less friendly relationships, this might be some kind of provocation or trickery.

  • For not rolling, this probably should unlock a specific kind of action that does something similar to the below rather than just working.
  • For rolling, easier means it’s something the character might already do, while harder means it’s something out of their norms.

Valiant Horizon #

Valiant Horizon lets players call for aid by rolling against how many Bonds they have with the other character:

  • Inverse High Die: the other character provides a small thing like Advantage or using a Standard.
  • Inverse Mid Die: the other character provides a bigger thing like use of a Power.
  • Inverse Low Die: the other character provides a huge thing like use of a Power they don’t have.

15+ on the Total also always succeeds regardless of anything else. (Escalation adds to every player character roll, so this is more reliable than it looks when Escalation is very high.)

Now: if you’re remembering that relationships can be between player characters, this idea should be raising alarms. In general, for safety reasons if not just general agency reasons, you will likely want to give players an out. For safety reasons, I recommend that the other player has to agree to do it out of character. If they don’t, the player and Narrator provide a counter-offer. Here are some ideas:

  • The action in question is a vague direction or getting them to feel a certain way, rather than a specific action; the other player decides specifically how it goes down.
  • The other player gains something if they agree to play along: a bonus to something, some kind of metacurrency, etc.
  • The other player takes some kind of penalty if they disagree: Harm, a penalty, loss of standing, etc.

There is nothing technically stopping you from letting it play out as-is if loss of agency is intended, or if the game is intended to be played from more of an indirect or writer’s-room stance than a direct-character-control stance. This is the kind of thing that can get nasty very quickly if wires get crossed: if you’re going to do this, be careful, emphasize safety, and do not assume the reader will understand what you intend.