thread: 2006-01-17 : More Character Co-ownership
On 2006-01-17, Piers wrote:
My first reaction would be to say less:
"Used to have a lover in Jamaica" implies something that may contradict how the player has conceived of the character in a way that can't be resolved. (Or it may give the player a chance to reenvision them in a useful way.)
When someone assigns relationship dice (without the "you are my Father" rule) how that means is entirely up to the player. If you feel strongly about them, one way or another, any amount of dice (3d4, 2d10, 1d6) works fine; the worst thing that could happen is the other player not assigning any dice, and then if you need it you can just ask. (Saying no—"I'm saving those for later" *smirk*—just puts that player in something like the GM chair for a moment.)
The alternative is when the dice get assigned to someone who you just aren't interested in. But because they don't say why that person is important, all it does is highlight them, move them towards you, like the camera lingering on another character whom the protagonist is ignoring. It makes tension; it pulls you towards them, whether by encouraging you to interact (good dice), or encouraging you to avoid (d4s). Trying to avoid is also a sort of interaction.
This makes VAX go "Why the hate for d4's?"
d4's are the best. I love having them on my sheet, especially for relationships. I love having a few tiny dice in my pool when I'm in a conflict, especially when there's some verbal interaction that can give me plenty of those nice juicy 1d4 fallout dice that generate experience oh, so often.
No hate for d4's here!
This makes PB go "I love them too..."
But it is part of the 'fallout is bad' initial assumption that Dogs sells to players when they start, as it works towards worming its new paradigms into their skull. d4s mean 'trouble'--but of course you can always avoid trouble in Dogs, so long as you don't care about getting your way.
