Three questions. I've been wandering about the connection between relationships and the so-called adventure gaming since Sett's rather disparaging comments about the former here:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=88508&postcount=24

True some games focus more on this issue than others, but I really believe that most games and gamers place a lot of emphasis on this issue during the course of the campaign, which makes Sett's whole thematic/adventure divide pretty ridiculous and shows it for what it is, a misguided attempt to ghettoize games for the sake of maintaining some kind of gaming purity. Not to mention the terms thematic and adventure are really just code for your games suck and mine don't.

So, here are the questions.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Now define relationships however you want. I would assume they cover a whole range of interactions. A pc questioning her loyalty to a once honorable monarch. A pc struggling to protect his secret identity from an NPC loved one. Squabbles between PCs - are just a few examples of relationships in games. How important are these relationships in your campaigns ?

2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

By this I mean, do you find that these relationships hinder game play in any way. Slow down the interesting "adventure" stuff. Get in the way of "killing it and taking it's stuff" Or does it make the campaign more interesting? How do they affect your games?

3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

If they were no rules for this kind of thing, would you still have them in your games?

*For the record, IME rules don't matter a whole lot when it comes to the relationships issue in my games.

So these are the three questions....

Regards,
David R

I find campaigns where the characters have relationships of some kind with NPCs to be more interesting and fulfilling. While it's fun for me to say, "Jim Bob cuts the guy's head off with his axe! Haha!" it's fulfilling for me to say, "Jim Bob would like to cut his head off... but Jim Bob's daughter is watching, so... um... I guess I better show mercy, I can't kill a guy in front of my daughter."

Character relationships do not hinder adventure stuff, or vice versa, any more than "pass the cheetos" does. You can only do one thing at a time, so if you have more of one then you have less of another, so it slows things down, but it doesn't "hinder" them.

1: Pretty Important. In many games they're the framework I build the "action" or 'adventure' around, albeit the relationships aren't there just to provide the framework but also add to the emotional impact of the game. In order for them to have emotional impact they have to have substance, and commitment from the PC to the "relationship" (whether thats friend, lover, sister, brother, cousin etc.) It's better if over time the relationship is fashioned without pressure of the "adventure" aspects--so when those do come along the players via their PC has a real desire to interact with the latter. Example: If in a superhero game some random girl is kidnapped--it won't matter much to the PC's emotional state. If I kidnap a girl who is just said to be his girlfriend (or sister, or whatever) then it still hasn't got any real valuable impact. But if the sister has popped up time again, asking favors, interacting with the PC, flirting with the other heroes secret ID, then weight is given to the relationship, and the emotional impact of bad (or good things happening is stronger)

2: Sometimes, and when they do get in the way of the action, that's the point. Action is well and good, but its not all RPG's are good for. Sometimes the relationship of the two fictional people is the thing we're interested in exploring. Sometimes its a spice to the main course of action/adventure.


3. Not Really.  Albeit systems which are easier on me in running them (requiring less conscious focus, and more freewheeling) lets me not worry about the rules and focus on the relationships better.
Example: In my current OVA game I've presented a number of NPC's going to the same "Knight School" as the PC's--some of them are relationship prospects (even ones I didn't fully expect when I presented them.)

Hey, I've mostly been running Nobilis for a good long while now...

3. Intrigue and feuding are fairly integral to the setting, especially since every single thing is sentient to some degree and may harbour feelings towards everything else, so having to deal with relationships would be unavoidable even if there weren't the mechanics for Bonds, the emotional attachments that characters have to all the things dearest to them.

2. However, because of these Bonds, in many ways relationships are in the heart of the action. While trying to protect everything that you care about, you'll no doubt also pry into the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of your enemies so that you can turn those against them. Knowledge about their personal lives can be a weapon that's literally more effective than a tactical nuke, and attempting to gain that knowledge is an adventure in itself.

1. So yes, relationships are important in the game, IC and OOC. And of course, there's more to their mechanical significance than simply the Bonds: for example, Nobles can only possess people that they have truly loved or hated.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Very important.

Quote from: David R2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

I find that the "action" sometimes gets in the way of the relationship play.

Quote from: David R3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Normally, the rules play very little role in the relationship content.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Of primary importance

Quote from: David R2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

No.  It only makes the action more intense and more interesting.

Quote from: David R3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Nope.  Players (including the GM) play the most important part of determining the relationship content in my games.  Rules are available to aid in creation of ideas for and developing those relationships, but behavior is not regulated by rules, it is regulated by play and how the characters interact with one another.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

It depends on the game being played (not the system being used). That is, it depends on my players and what they're intrested in. They can either form the entire basis of a given campaign or simply serve as window dressing (per the tried and true "backstory" of a character).

Quote2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

They play as little or much of a role as my players want. So, no.

Quote3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

This is purely a matter of system. If relationships are represented by specific mechanics in the game we (i.e., my group) is playing, we use them.

1: Relationships are vital - not important, vital! - in my games. All of my games have spaces on the character sheet back page for important relationships. People live in a matrix of relations, and if you take the character out of that matrix, the character becomes inhuman.

2: No. IMO, they enhance the action. A person who has nothing to die for has nothing to live for. The relationships give meaning to the character's life,

3: I prefer no overt rules for relationships. To me, rules are clumsy and crude tools to handle something as nuanced and complex as relationships. To me that is like using a hammer to shape glass.

-clash

I find campaigns where the characters have relationships of some kind with NPCs to be fun and fulfilling. While it's fun for me to say, "Pajor cuts the guy's head off with his axe! Haha!" it's fulfilling for me to say, "Pajor would like to cut his head off... but Pajor's daughter is watching, so... um... I guess Pajor will hand the axe to her and let her get her first kill."

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

1. They are the driving force behind much of the game.

2.  No.  Rather they are the catalyst for much of the action.

3.  Not really.  Although perceptions of characters and NPCs can be shaped by how they perform within the framework of the rules, and there are the occasional rare random reaction rolls which turn into something more permanent, for the greatest part relationships between various characters is determined by role-playing not mechanics.

QuoteHow important are relationships in your games ?

Pretty important to set the tone of the setting.  Relationships are how we empathize with the characters without having to "act out" emotional encounters at the table.  

Quote2. Do these relationships get in the way of the "action" ?

No but they can be springboards, resources for, or a way to illustrate the importance of the action.  I've cleared dungeons, fought dragons, taken down evil sorcerers but there's still some asshole in the local bar that wants to fight?    

Quote3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Somewhat, maybe.  Games like BW have a player initiated relationship mechanic, so I could see how that could increase relationship content because it's a resource the players use.  Otherwise, it's the standard GM/player built relationship content.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Truth be told, I just like having shit blow up.  I'm currently GMing the most "mature" (as in least dungeonlike) game I've ever done.  The PCs are the ones setting up all the relationships and such.  I'd be just as happy cuing up the firefight theme from ALIENS and having them take on gangs of chakram-throwing goons.  

Quote2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

I dunno yet.  Get back to me in a month or so.  (Incidentally, I'm kicking around an idea for a totally Swinish game in which the PCs' relationships directly correlate to their performance in combat.)

Quote3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Sometimes.  If a relationship begins as part of a conflict, then die rolls played a large part.  I've played a game of Exalted in which social combat was the main source of "action".  (In my aforementioned game idea rules would be central to the whole thing.)

Settembrini has been reluctant to discuss his adventure game thing in any depth for a while now. Until he lays the groundwork for an actual discussion, or points to earlier links in which he's done that in the past, I'll just call him a boardgamer, not a roleplayer.

Quote from: David RThree questions. I've been wandering about the connection between relationships and the so-called adventure gaming since Sett's rather disparaging comments about the former here:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=88508&postcount=24

True some games focus more on this issue than others, but I really believe that most games and gamers place a lot of emphasis on this issue during the course of the campaign, which makes Sett's whole thematic/adventure divide pretty ridiculous and shows it for what it is, a misguided attempt to ghettoize games for the sake of maintaining some kind of gaming purity. Not to mention the terms thematic and adventure are really just code for your games suck and mine don't.

Well, they are indeed code for that. So are the terms "sim", "narrativism", "brain-damage" and "story-game". And about a million others.  

I don't mind you pointing that out or phrasing it like that, either. But until you are able to show some even-handedness, I have to doubt your honesty in this post.

If we can all agree that that trend sucks and that the people primarily behind it are reprehensible and should be shunned, than my work is mostly done. But the real point is, you can't hate us without hating the forgies for doing the exact same thing.

Quote from: david rSo, here are the questions.

1. How important are relationships in your games?

Now define relationships however you want. ...

Actually, stop right there. If we're talking about the divide between adventure and thematic as defined by Settembrini, you can't "define them however you want". They can only be defined in ways that support theme. This is a rhetorical misdirection. If I said "how important is story to your game?" and then followed that up with a parenthetical (define story however you want), I'd get about a million assertions of story being this terribly significant thing, but then the trick at the end, is when suddenly it comes down from on high that a story is "only those things which contain a "premise" as defined by Lagos Egris, and a moral lesson."

And at that exact thing actually happened in 2004 or so.

Quote from: david R2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

By this I mean, do you find that these relationships hinder game play in any way. Slow down the interesting "adventure" stuff. Get in the way of "killing it and taking it's stuff" Or does it make the campaign more interesting? How do they affect your games?

Someone up above said you can only really do one thing at a time. Given that the definition has been left completely up to the responder, I don't see how any answer to this question can give you any new information.

Quote from: david r3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

If they were no rules for this kind of thing, would you still have them in your games? ...

See, now THIS, is where the real question is. This is the only one that actually applies to Settembrini's assertion, and it only does so in sort of a glancing half-aimed way. Because if we are still trying to prove or deny the idea of a "adventure/thematic" dichotomy, those rules for relationships are ironclad. In order for the dichotomy to be true.. the thematic game must have rules for all that stuff. So here, I thought "now we're getting close to someone actually making a point!" Either David is going to see a lot of people say "hell yeah, I want relationships with rules. I need to roll dice to see if my parents respect me or whatever." Or he's going to see a lot of "fuck that. I'll roleplay that relationship stuff out and save the dice-rolling for when I have to battle giant mushrooms and whatnot"

But then here's your next sentence:

Quote from: David R*For the record, IME rules don't matter a whole lot when it comes to the relationships issue in my games.

This makes me think two things:

1) You wussed out. Either you like games like Dogs in the Vineyard because of the relationship rules, or despite them.

2) Your'e actually an Adventure gamer!

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, they are indeed code for that. So are the terms "sim", "narrativism", "brain-damage" and "story-game". And about a million others

Yeah and I don't think much of those terms either.

QuoteI don't mind you pointing that out or phrasing it like that, either. But until you are able to show some even-handedness, I have to doubt your honesty in this post.

Why don't you point out where I've been biased. I mean you seem to doubt my honesty. Does liking one forge game - DiTV - make me a dishonest participant ? Let's look at the games I've talked about.

Unknown Armies.
Cyberpunk2020
D&D
In Harms Way
Over the Edge
Hunter

All mainstream games...well most of them. I linked to Sett's original comments, which were far worse if one reads the thread. What he said about relationships and games is there for all to see. You seem to think his def of thematic valid. Great, but I for one, think it's bollocks.

QuoteActually, stop right there. If we're talking about the divide between adventure and thematic as defined by Settembrini, you can't "define them however you want". They can only be defined in ways that support theme.

Sett has not defined them. Actually Sett brought up the whole issue of relationships. I can't help it if his definition is dodgy or that it does not reflect the reality of what happens around the gaming table.

QuoteThis is a rhetorical misdirection. If I said "how important is story to your game?" and then followed that up with a parenthetical (define story however you want), I'd get about a million assertions of story being this terribly significant thing, but then the trick at the end, is when suddenly it comes down from on high that a story is "only those things which contain a "premise" as defined by Lagos Egris, and a moral lesson."

Rubbish. I asked folks to define relationships in their games simply because, different people have different ways they define it. I want folks to talk about their games. And if you look closely, most people don't really have a problem with defining what "relationship" means. We know it when we see it in our games.

QuoteSomeone up above said you can only really do one thing at a time. Given that the definition has been left completely up to the responder, I don't see how any answer to this question can give you any new information.

Yeah one person. Another person said it was vital to his game. Most if not all have said that it's important. What info can I get ? That gamers not necessarily adventure gamers view relationships as important in their games.

QuoteSee, now THIS, is where the real question is. This is the only one that actually applies to Settembrini's assertion, and it only does so in sort of a glancing half-aimed way. Because if we are still trying to prove or deny the idea of a "adventure/thematic" dichotomy, those rules for relationships are ironclad. In order for the dichotomy to be true.. the thematic game must have rules for all that stuff. So here, I thought "now we're getting close to someone actually making a point!" Either David is going to see a lot of people say "hell yeah, I want relationships with rules. I need to roll dice to see if my parents respect me or whatever." Or he's going to see a lot of "fuck that. I'll roleplay that relationship stuff out and save the dice-rolling for when I have to battle giant mushrooms and whatnot"

No this is where your bias is showing. Look through some of the old Nutkinland threads where Maddman, blakkie and I clashed over this very issue. Most gamers don't need rules for relationships in their games. But what are thematic games? Sett does not seem to have a clue. The one thing I see bandied about is, that these games have rules for relationships...so a thematic game is a game where there are rules for relationships...so what about gamers who carry out relationships in their games without rules...are they engaging in thematic play?

QuoteThis makes me think two things:

1) You wussed out. Either you like games like Dogs in the Vineyard because of the relationship rules, or despite them.

2) Your'e actually an Adventure gamer!

Here's a few more thoughts you might want to chew on.

1) That I don't need rules for this kind of play, but just like DiTV because it's an interesting game.

2) Trying out new games is something we do as a group and we get a lot of fun out of them...most times.

3) I'm not so set in my playstyle that other types of play is anathema to me.

Pick one.

Regards,
David R