Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7062961" data-attributes="member: 16586">Bonds are not really about reinforcing the relationship. They are about meaningfully exploring it. Here's the relevant passage:&nbsp;One way to resolve the bond between Lucann and Thurgon would be for me as the player of Lucann to decide he does not trust Thurgon anymore but it trying to salvage their relationship. The new bond might be &quot;Thurgon is too wrapped up in this Iron Tower business. I must convince him to honor The Accords.&quot; Alternatively, if I am willing to go there I might decide that Thurgon is now my enemy. The new bond might be &quot;Thurgon has stepped on the Accords for the last time. By Sehanine, I shall end him.&quot;Thurgon might see things differently and have conflicting bonds. If I declare that he is now my enemy&nbsp; &nbsp; [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] might decide that Thurgon wants Lucann to see reason. &quot;Lucann is my friend. I will bring him into the Storm Lord's light.&quot; Here we have compelling play with multilayered relationships where players' characters act in opposition.Think of bonds as questions to be answered, rather than statements of truth.A significant portion of Powered by the Apocalypse games actually expect that players' characters might end up opposed to one another. Dungeon World, Masks, and The Sprawl are fairly group focused. They do not really get in the way of conflict though. Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts do not assume the characters will even be allies in any way. That's up to the players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 7062961, member: 16586"] Bonds are not really about reinforcing the relationship. They are about meaningfully exploring it. Here's the relevant passage: One way to resolve the bond between Lucann and Thurgon would be for me as the player of Lucann to decide he does not trust Thurgon anymore but it trying to salvage their relationship. The new bond might be "Thurgon is too wrapped up in this Iron Tower business. I must convince him to honor The Accords." Alternatively, if I am willing to go there I might decide that Thurgon is now my enemy. The new bond might be "Thurgon has stepped on the Accords for the last time. By Sehanine, I shall end him." Thurgon might see things differently and have conflicting bonds. If I declare that he is now my enemy [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] might decide that Thurgon wants Lucann to see reason. "Lucann is my friend. I will bring him into the Storm Lord's light." Here we have compelling play with multilayered relationships where players' characters act in opposition. Think of bonds as questions to be answered, rather than statements of truth. A significant portion of Powered by the Apocalypse games actually expect that players' characters might end up opposed to one another. Dungeon World, Masks, and The Sprawl are fairly group focused. They do not really get in the way of conflict though. Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts do not assume the characters will even be allies in any way. That's up to the players. [/QUOTE]

Verification