TheRPGSite

What games are out there that mechanically track the relationship between two characters?

What kind of "maneuvers" are there that the players can do to the relationship (get'cher mind out of the gutter, you!) and what impact do they have?  What, in short, is the nature of the tactical field?

They are crap and artificial feeling.  The only believable relationship that can develop between two characters are one that the players develop themselves.

Plus no manner of mechanics will get the 1 girl in your group to love you.

It isn't strictly between characters, but HeroQuest has the option of relationship ratings.  They're intended to show the intensity of the bond between a player character and his family, community, or other significant people in his life.  Typically, the rating provides a score for the likelihood that these friends, family, or community will be able to provide assitance to the player when he's in need.  However, it can also provide a modifier to a PC's attempt to interact with them -- the intensity of the bond may influence a key roll.

Now, as I stated above, these relationship ratings are intended to be used between PCs and NPCs, but two or more players could feasibly declare relationship ratings among themselves.  This strains the spirit of the rule, though, and a GM would have to be feeling generous to allow mechanics to take the place of roleplaying.  That said, the rules are there and may well apply in specific situations.

Similarly, Pendragon has various passion scores that serve a similar purpose, and could conceivably be invoked under similar circumstances.  An appropriate Love or Loyalty score (say Love of Family, if another PC is a character's brother or cousin) could be invoked in a moment of intense need.

!i!

...and obviously, the Dead (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8100) does.

QuoteThey are crap and artificial feeling. The only believable relationship that can develop between two characters are one that the players develop themselves.

Plus no manner of mechanics will get the 1 girl in your group to love you.

edgy!  hey, kinda like those stupid combat mechanics that proliferate rpg's.  I bet people actually think they can fight in real life after a few sessions. :rolleyes:

I kinda agree with Kryyst. Not so vehemently, however. Artificial constructs in the form of rules for relationships in the game are fine...for dealing with characters that aren't actually controlled by the players around the table (presuming a GM & players set up). Relationship constructs for dealing with the actual people you are playing with (via their characters) aren't necessary. You can actually talk to them and play it out with the brains behind the character! There are plenty of games with the first type of relationship rules (like Ian said, Pendragon for one, Stone Horizons for another! ;) ). The second type? :raise:

My upcoming story game, Remains of the End (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=154898&postcount=16), is primarily designed to track relationships between characters using its trait/fallout system.  I'm still tweaking out the scoring system for relationships, though.

Quote from: One Horse TownI kinda agree with Kryyst. Not so vehemently, however.

And that's all fine.  If people want to make a thread for talking about how relationship mechanics suck, or even a thread for talking about whether they have value (with both sides examined) that'd be cool.

But I also hope that folks will set aside that value question, in this thread, since here I'm interested in hearing what's gone before whether it sucks or not.

Thanks in advance! :D

Quote from: kregmosieredgy!  hey, kinda like those stupid combat mechanics that proliferate rpg's.  I bet people actually think they can fight in real life after a few sessions. :rolleyes:

There's a pretty big difference. You can actually just ROLEPLAY the relationship. You can't just fight the combat, unless you want to have a very short-lived gaming group with a tragic end.

I know that this idea of "roleplaying" might be new to a few of you...

RPGPundit

The upcoming Story Engine 3E has simple verb-noun threads which link a PC to an NPC. This either provides a bonus or penalty depending on the nature of a task.

The Iron Gauntlets Companion adds a more detailed system for threads to Iron Gauntlets tasks between PCs.

EDIT: The possible threads in IG are Rapport, Rivalry, Dissent, Synergy, and Adoration.

Active Exploits Diceless has a similar threads system to that introduced in the Iron Gauntlets Companion.

These relationships are not rated, but they can provide bonuses/penalties depending on how you use them.

In general, I don't like any system that tries to tell me what my character thinks about other people, so while I can see some scope for relationship mechanics affecting NPCs I don't like the idea of them affecting my PC.

The only personality mechanics I really like are the ones in Pendragon, and that's because I an pretty much ignore them if I want to: I never have to roll against my Passions, and as far as my Traits go I can keep them towards the middle and just behave more-or-less how I like: the system is nicely self-correcting, and Stafford only suggests making people roll on Traits if they have extreme scores in them (so if you've played your knight as being bloodthirsty all the way through the game, and then suddenly want to be merciful, you've got to roll - essentially, it's a roll to suddenly contradict what you've previously established about the character).

Quote from: Warthur(so if you've played your knight as being bloodthirsty all the way through the game, and then suddenly want to be merciful, you've got to roll - essentially, it's a roll to suddenly contradict what you've previously established about the character).

That's pretty much how I feel it should be done and that's how I approached threads.

Quote from: kregmosier...and obviously, the Dead (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8100) does.



edgy!  hey, kinda like those stupid combat mechanics that proliferate rpg's.  I bet people actually think they can fight in real life after a few sessions. :rolleyes:

Ah quick wit.  But my point stands.  Combat rules are useful in an rpg because it's your method of interacting with the environment of the world.  Relationship mechanics are ultimately artificial and forced feeling.  Players will either have a feeling towards another PC/NPC or they won't.  You can have a mechanic that says your character likes this character  but other then constantly nagging a PC that's acting out of grounds with what that number says it's utterly pointless.

In the same way that torturing a character for information is a lame effect.  The player isn't concerned he just makes rolls until his character fails it's stupid.

Quote from: kryystRelationship mechanics are ultimately artificial and forced feeling.  Players will either have a feeling towards another PC/NPC or they won't.  You can have a mechanic that says your character likes this character  but other then constantly nagging a PC that's acting out of grounds with what that number says it's utterly pointless.

Not so. That's why you provide a bonus to encourage it or penalty to discourage it. It may be artificial, but so are half the skills that your character possesses. Do you really know how to tame a wolf?

Quote from: pigames.netNot so. That's why you provide a bonus to encourage it or penalty to discourage it. It may be artificial, but so are half the skills that your character possesses. Do you really know how to tame a wolf?

That utterly irrelevant.  I have yet to find a GM that's so good as to bring in a wolf as a prop that I can try and tame in real life.  For the same reason you have lock picking skills, computer hacking skills, mad bo staff skills etc.... These are representitive of physical actions your character is taking in a game world.  There is no way (go away LARPER's and your silly bean bags) to represent them in reality.

However when you talk about how your character feels about another no set of numbers are going to change a players perspective.  You may gain some guidance of how to act that out, in the same way a player for once in their life may realistically play a character of lesser or vastly more intelligence then themselves.  But at the end of the day they are crap mechanics that get tacked on.

The only purpose they server are to reward or penalize a player for not acting a certain way, which is to say they are utterly arbitrary.

I find many skills to be arbitrary and have no real use. If a skill does not serve to reward a character for attempting a particular action, then what does it do? The higher my skill rating, the more of a reward I get. So goes with relationships - if I feel a particular way about someone (or vice versa), my dealings with them are affected in a similar manner.

For example, if I am good at fast-talking, I get a bonus to convince someone to sell me a plot of land. By the same token, if I have a really good relationship with someone, I can also get a bonus to convince them to sell.

You obviously have your mind set on this, so I won't bother to try to convince you. I'm merely stating my opinion as are you.

Would Duel of Wits from whatever game it comes from count?


And hey, Tony - where ya been? I ain't seen you in a thread in a long time.

Dice mechanics for combat are good for a tabletop game.  They're not as good for a Boffer LARP where you determine success in combat through skill with the nerf bat.

It's all about what parts of the game your players use their own real world skills and abilities to resolve, and which are abstracted and dealt with by dice (etc).

In most RPGs the players don't get up and run around the room fighting, so the combat system is abstracted.  They do talk in character though, so many social things are resolved through talking in the 1st person and "roleplaying" it.

However, you could easily have a tabletop game where all social interactions are based on dice rolls, cards, etc.  There are lots of board games like this.

It entirely depends on what kind of game you're making.

I'm going to step off my rant (maybe only for a second go).

There are many games that use relationship mechanics to some effect.   Riddle of Steel for example has spiritual attributes that can effect your characters reaction in face of certain NPC's.

Dogs in the Vineyard has relationship traits that give you bonus dice in situations when these relationships can be brought into play.

Champions has a relationship weakness in that you are protecting some family member for example.

The common factor is that these relationships are towards NPC's and serve primarily as a mechanical tool to give you bonus dice when that relationship comes up.  They are certainly rather vague in what they mean, as a relationship in these situations is any bond you have, good or bad and they don't really mandate how you feel about that NPC (person or organization).  

That NPC is just an object in these situations and a tool for the GM to put into use.  These sorts of mechanics don't bother me, as they can serve a purpose in driving a story.  Though I think a successful story can be driven more effectively if you create a bond through game play and not just a number on the page.

Now back to my original point.  Relationship mechanics that try and influence player decisions are pointless, doubly so if it's between two characters.  If the players aren't feeling it, then why try and enforce it.  All it does is enforce that separation between mechanics and story and does nothing for Suspension of Disbelief.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd hey, Tony - where ya been? I ain't seen you in a thread in a long time.

Had my bathroom (right next to the office) redone ... between the hammering and sawing and drywall powder and electricity going on and off unpredictably it seemed like a good time to take a bit of an internet vacation and do stuff in the real world.

So, folks ... any chance that the people who want to discuss whether all relationship mechanics, everywhere, are good, bad, indifferent or plaid could ... y'know ... saunter off to a thread made for that purpose?  'cuz the few actual posts to the original topic are quickly getting drowned.

I find it very odd that so many of these relationship mechanics are attached to only one character.  Like, Bob has a "Loves Carol" relationship-trait on his sheet, but Carol doesn't have anything to represent that Bob loves her?

The database programmer in me is twitching at how wrong-headed that storage scheme is.  Shouldn't the relationship be something that is attached to (and influenced by) both characters?  Are there any games that do that?

Quote from: TonyLBI find it very odd that so many of these relationship mechanics are attached to only one character.  Like, Bob has a "Loves Carol" relationship-trait on his sheet, but Carol doesn't have anything to represent that Bob loves her?

The database programmer in me is twitching at how wrong-headed that storage scheme is.  Shouldn't the relationship be something that is attached to (and influenced by) both characters?  Are there any games that do that?

Threads in the Iron Gauntlets Companion are two-way relationships. For example, when a character defeats another that is linked by dissent, the winner gains a specific type of bonus while the loser gets a penalty on another type of task.

Quote from: pigames.netThreads in the Iron Gauntlets Companion are two-way relationships. For example, when a character defeats another that is linked by dissent, the winner gains a specific type of bonus while the loser gets a penalty on another type of task.

Cooooool. :D

As far as I know, the first relationship mechanics were in Champions -- but this was later imitated by GURPS and then lots of other games.  Champions includes both Dependent NPC as a Disadvantage, but also followers (and later contacts and allies) as Perks.  

Ars Magica and Pendragon had feelings of attachment that could be traits that would affect resolution rolls where those feelings were involved.  These more represented the emotion or belief of internal to a person rather than the social connection per se.  There are a number of later games that also do this.  

As far as I know, the first game where relationships per se affect the rolls is Dogs in the Vineyard.  (My Life With Master had your Love stat tied to your connections, but that was arguably internal since it didn't matter if the connection loved you in return.)  

Regarding simply role-playing these out with no mechanics -- that can work, but it's not the only choice.  Important relationships often consist of more than just the sort of conversations one is willing to play out as in-character dialogue in an RPG session.  You don't necessarily want to play out a year of being drinking buddies, or a seduction.  Also, the mechanics don't necessarily conflict with this.  For example, in Champions you might have a DNPC, but you can have a falling out with that person and cease to care -- that just means you will get an equivalent Disadvantage instead.  

Quote from: TonyLBI find it very odd that so many of these relationship mechanics are attached to only one character.  Like, Bob has a "Loves Carol" relationship-trait on his sheet, but Carol doesn't have anything to represent that Bob loves her?

The database programmer in me is twitching at how wrong-headed that storage scheme is.  Shouldn't the relationship be something that is attached to (and influenced by) both characters?  Are there any games that do that?

I don't know of any that does this, no.  Since relationships can be one-sided, it seems to make database sense to attach connections based on direction.  So Bob has "Loves Carol" if he loves her, and Carol has "Loves Bob" if she loves him in return.  If Carol ceases to love Bob, she drops that trait.

Quote from: jhkimI don't know of any that does this, no.  Since relationships can be one-sided, it seems to make database sense to attach connections based on direction.  So Bob has "Loves Carol" if he loves her, and Carol has "Loves Bob" if she loves him in return.  If Carol ceases to love Bob, she drops that trait.

Yeah, but if Bob has "Loves Carol" then Carol has (at least implicitly) "Loved by Bob" even if she feels nothing toward him.  And since, frankly, "Loved by Bob" is pretty likely to net her some serious advantages, I'd think that's the kind of thing that could be made explicit as one of her character resources.  Not that it has to be, I'm just surprised to discover that so few games have tried it.

Quote from: pigames.netThreads in the Iron Gauntlets Companion are two-way relationships. For example, when a character defeats another that is linked by dissent, the winner gains a specific type of bonus while the loser gets a penalty on another type of task.

Follow-up:  So where are these relationships written down?  If Yuri hates Ivan, is that written on Yuri's sheet, Ivan's sheet, both, neither, a 3x5 card in the middle of the table?  What?

Quote from: TonyLBFollow-up:  So where are these relationships written down?  If Yuri hates Ivan, is that written on Yuri's sheet, Ivan's sheet, both, neither, a 3x5 card in the middle of the table?  What?

For Iron Gauntlets (and Active Exploits), because two or more characters in a group share a thread, it is written on each of their character sheets. For example, Yuri and Ivan are linked by synergy (they are identical twins), so both their sheets note this thread with the other. Synergy lets one character take over sustained tasks for the other (they both put in the required time to complete the task) and one can expend experience for the other in order to add extra dice to the task.

Shadowruns old connection system (as expanded by the 2nd Edition Compendium) is something I always liked. Connections are bought on char-gen, but can later be won either by role-playing it out or spending XP.

There are 3 levels of relationship, and they affect how easy or hard it is to manipulate the NPC and how well he resists when interrogated about the PC, as well as some role-playing guidelines for the different levels.

You can improve them by XP and role-playing, but you also have to pay some upkeep for presents etc. (though you can partially or wholly replace upkeep by doing appropriate actions like making a match between your connection and a hot chick).


I always liked it because it gives mechanical safety, but still allows to use clever ideas to improve things rather than just deduct points and money. It's a system where the position of the GM as the final arbiter is a permissive one where he can reward for "good role-playing", not one where he can penalize for the lack of it (or more accurately what he deems to be "bad role-playing", what isn't necessarily what everyone else on the table agrees on).
It also makes relations an interesting part of the game without distracting from the core story, and the possibility to highlight interesting NPCs by spending XP on them is a good way to empower players and their wishes without turning it into something from the artsy-fartsy territory.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat games are out there that mechanically track the relationship between two characters?

Artesia: Adventures in the Known world has mechanics for this.

QuoteWhat kind of "maneuvers" are there that the players can do to the relationship (get'cher mind out of the gutter, you!) and what impact do they have?  What, in short, is the nature of the tactical field?

In A:AKW, you have a relationship to everybody even strangers (who will mostly count as just that - 'stranger'), and each category of relationship gives modifiers to their ability to resist your attempts to influence them (friends are much more likely to be swayed by you than enemies), and their loyalty to you. Many of the categories have a penalty to your attempts to get someone to move into them, so the easiest way to get someone to become your best friend is to go slow, shifting them up the chart one step at the time so that the penalties are mostly offset by the bonus to influence people who like you.

All sounds great doesn't it? Make everyone your friend and they'll all be but putty in your hands. One thing that stops this is that fumbles on your influence rolls have negative effects, so the more you lean on people, the more likely you are to push them away. Also, the closer someone is to you, the more it's likely to cause you Grief if they die, etc. (Grief is a 'binding' - like a disadvantage in GURPS or Hero), and the stronger that binding will be, as will any Guilt you might pick up if you betray them. Thus friends, allies, lovers, & etc. are useful, but you need to look after them.

Influence skills and rolls naturally work into this, and you can use them normally, or you can 'appeal to empathy', by playing to the other parties' emotions. The downside with this is that it only works well if you have a good Empathy yourself (which makes you more vulnerable to picking up bindings when you betray someone, etc.), and of course it's of limited value when trying to influence a stone-cold bastard.

I rather liked it, and found it worked well in play, though the game does assume that the PC's are under their players control as to who they like and don't like, so the rules are set up to work from PC to NPC, and not both ways (though that's easily fixable if you want to).

I think the Mongoose OGL Horror game made relationships central, they were threads and if you lost all of them I think you lost your character (the idea being they were your connection to your humanity, if you delved too deep fighing the unknown you risked losing all connection to what you were fighting for).

I don't know how it was done mechanically though.

At a very simple level, Mongoose Traveller (by the same author I believe) gives you bonus skills for linking your PC with another PC during chargen, though I get the impression that's not tracked thereafter.

Personally I tend to prefer mechanics linking PCs with NPCs, PCs and PCs can in most cases be roleplayed, unless the relationships are actually the focus of the campaign in which case more support might be good but I don't know much that provides it.