The Process of Intimacy

The rules described so far can be used for building relationships or changing attitudes. Although the game roles of these two are different, they are closely linked, and in the real world it would be hard to separate them. Therefore, the same kinds of actions can be used to modify either. So, the personae could use the rules to increase the extent to which a character loves or trusts them, or to build a relationship with that character.

Some parts of the process will, however, be different depending on the game mechanic involved. The most important difference is that a relationship is necessarily mutual, because of the way the game statistic is defined, while an attitude may be entirely one-sided. Indeed, it makes sense to allow actions that create a particular attitude in a group of people. It is certainly possible to build trust with a whole group, and similarly for awe. Love and hope may be a bit more difficult to imagine, but they are far from impossible. A whole group of people might have all four positive attitudes to a charismatic leader, for example.

If the persona has no relationship to the people who develop the attitudes, then the characters’ attitudes tell us nothing about what the persona thinks about them. Indeed, in some cases the persona might not even be aware that the characters exist as individuals. Again, think of the fans of a celebrity. The celebrity takes actions to encourage certain attitudes on the part of the fans, but while she knows that the fans exist as a group, she knows very few individuals among them.

Things are different if the persona is trying to build a relationship. In this case, the relationship is mutual, and the persona must be deeply involved with the character. Because a persona and a character have a single score to measure their relationship, the relationship score tells us nothing about their attitudes to each other. What is more, it seems strange to think that two people could have a very strong relationship, but no strong opinions about each other.

There is a simple way to address both of these points. We can say that a relationship cannot have a higher score than the character’s strongest attitude to the persona. This attitude could be a default attitude, if the relationship is only a weak one. Further, we will say that, by default, the persona has the same attitudes to the character as the character has to the persona. The strength probably does not matter, because attitudes will not be used to decide how personae act.

Normally, this is no problem. Personae will be trying to build mutual relationships of love and trust, because that’s the sort of game that Kannagara is. In some cases, however, things might be different. In particular, a persona might want to convince a character to trust her as a first step in getting him to stop lying all the time. In that case, trusting the character is a bad idea, but the persona needs to build a relationship in order to help. In such cases, a persona can try to build a relationship while having a different attitude.

This should be harder than trying to build a more straightforward relationship, and so should give the player a penalty to the number of dice she rolls or keeps. The penalty might be equal to the strength of the attitude, or maybe to the strength of the relationship. Either makes sense; the more strongly someone feels about the persona, the harder it is to avoid that feeling influencing you. On the other hand, as the relationship becomes strong, it is hard to maintain an asymmetry. This is something to be worked on in playtest, so I will make a final decision later.

Building relationships with characters is an important part of the game, but so is interacting with them more casually. As long as personae and characters do not disagree, no rules are needed for this: the characters just go along with the personae’s suggestions. When there is conflict, however, we need rules for resolving it. That is the next technical mechanical topic, but there is a broader topic I want to discuss first. I don’t think that Kannagara needs a GM.

Learning about People

What are the sorts of things that serve as elements when trying to find out about someone? The default assumption is that the personae are not spying on and manipulating the character, although that is possible, and should be supported by the rules at some point (although not necessarily in the core book). Instead, the personae are quite open about the fact that they are trying to build a relationship with the character.

The investigation elements will, therefore, include such things as “talk to her”. In fact, quite a lot of the elements will boil down to “talk to her”, so those elements need to be more closely defined. Recall that personae need to use several elements to build up an investigation, and can only use each element once. Each element, then, should not cover too much ground. “Talk about current events”, “talk about hobbies”, “talk about recent holidays”, “talk about religion”, and so on seem as though they would have a reasonable level of detail. Since the personae are being open about what they are trying to do, we should not neglect elements like “ask her what food she likes”. However, there are other useful approaches: “look at her outfit”, for example, because the clothes that someone wears tell you something about her. If the persona has been invited to the character’s home, “look at her bookshelves” is another option. Some elements here will be made available by the course of the game — by being invited into the character’s home, for example.

The other players describe the response. Here, the elements include things like “complains about politicians”, “plays tennis”, “visited Guam”, or “doesn’t know the difference between a jinja and a Buddhist temple”. Because the game is set in Japan, and most of the players will probably not be in Japan, the source material for the game will suggest some elements that could be used here, and the sorts of things that go together. Of course, the Japanese are also human, so there are a lot of similarities to people in other countries and players can also rely on their common sense.

The pieces of information that the persona puts together are things like “she likes cats”, “she is insecure about her appearance”, “she likes to think that she doesn’t care about food”, and so on. These are features of her personality, and while they can change over time, they are established at this point. These features do not determine what the personae should do to improve their relationship with her, but they do provide hints. They also help establish the character, for future interactions, and may also provide new goals for the personae. For example, they may decide to help a character who is insecure about her appearance to feel more confident about the way she looks.

Finally, the theory is, in this case, a description of the action the personae will take. This might be as simple as “buy her a cat”, or as complex as “hold a party with lots of delicious desserts, but where every dessert is from a different country, and captures part of the essence of the country, so that she can enjoy lots of desserts while telling herself that she is really investigating international culture”. (I think events like that are held in Japan quite frequently.) The players can generally just make these theories up, with the die roll simply determining how many dice they keep when they actually perform the action to boost the relationship. The game should provide some examples to give players hints and guidance, but this is another area that is within the realms of common sense.

One way I will incorporate Japanese culture into the game is by providing sets of elements that go together well for Japanese people, or that make good individual elements. For example, a lot of Japanese women want to own brand-name bags and clothes. This means that “wants to own brand-name shoes” is a good element for a Japanese woman. However, “has no interest in brand-name shoes” is also a good element, because it defines her as not following the general social trend. The important point is that a woman’s attitude to brand-name goods is significant, and, as far as I can tell, a man’s is not. Incorporating that sort of element into the game makes it feel as though you are playing in Japanese culture.

Before we finish the discussion of building relationships, I want to talk about the process. What happens while the personae are performing the actions that will create the relationship with the character?

Constructing a Theory

What do personae do with the information they have gathered? They put it together into a theory that tells them something about the subject they are investigating.

Putting the information together is another simple roll. The player rolls the relevant knowledge, and keeps the number of dice granted by the pieces of information. A persona can only incorporate pieces of information with a total incorporation cost of less than or equal to her score in the knowledge. However, the player can make this roll even if the persona has no score in the relevant knowledge; that just means rolling twice as many dice as she gets to keep, and keeping the bottom half. In this case, some of the pieces of information must have a negative incorporation cost, so that the total incorporation cost is zero or less.

A single persona may only try this once, for a given set of information. If she doesn’t like the result, she must gather more information before she can try again. It’s possible that the persona already knows more information than she can use at once; in that case, she can swap a piece of information out, so that she has a different set, and try again. Another persona may try with the same set, if she has the same score in the knowledge, and hope for a better roll. Because gathering information takes time, the normal situation will be for the personae to gather as much information as the best of them can use, and then each persona will try to make the best theory she can.

So, what does the result of the roll mean? In the context of building a relationship, the theory is an idea for an action to take to improve the relationship in question, and a good theory will provide more dice to keep. In other contexts, the theory may be very different. It seems sensible to build the theory out of elements, again, and have the information provide constraints on the elements available. Information that introduces complications, for example, will normally lead to theories with complications. More generally, information that a character likes strawberries will normally lead to the personae designing an action involving strawberries.

In contexts other than building relationships, these theories will often create options. A good roll indicates a theory that is a useful description of that aspect of the world, so a good roll for the theory could create one that allows a number of new activities. For example, there should be a theory that opens the option of transforming into a kannagi. A theory could also provide generally useful elements, which the personae can incorporate in their actions. The theory tells the personae that doing a certain sort of thing is effective, and so the personae can then do that, when it is appropriate.

An important side issue comes up here. The personae are gathering new information and putting it together into a theory; this is the sort of activity that increases your knowledge of a subject. Therefore, it makes sense for the persona to gain experience in the applicable knowledge from making these sorts of rolls. It is not actually possible to fail this roll, so the normal rule for gaining experience from using a skill does not apply. Instead, as a placeholder I’ll say that the persona gets 1 experience point for making the roll, and 2 if the total is more than 4 times the number of dice kept.

The rules here are heavily dependent on the elements, so in the next post I want to say a bit about the sorts of elements that would be involved in the context of building a relationship.


The next step in discovery is mechanically simple. The player rolls her persona’s investigation dice, and keeps the number of dice indicated by the elements of her investigation. The result of this roll is the pool of points that the player can use to describe the information that her character has discovered. Again, this is done in terms of elements.

Each element has a discovery cost, which is the number of points needed to make it part of the information discovered. Standard elements also have an incorporation cost and a number of dice, which are used when generating a theory in the next stage. A low incorporation cost and a high number of dice is good, because that will tend to produce a better theory. Naturally, a low incorporation cost and a high number of dice mean that the element has a high discovery cost.

Once an element has been discovered, it is part of the description of the subject. If, for example, the persona discovers that a character likes cats, then that character does like cats. The character may change her preferences over time, but even if she does it will at least be true that she did like cats. This means that some elements will exclude others; a character who likes cats cannot dislike them as well. Of course, a character can like cats and dislike dogs, so these restrictions will often be simple, and a matter of common sense.

When the personae are discovering something about a subject that is not a part of the real world, however, these links between elements become more important. If an element is a feature of a subject, it might make some impossible, and others more or less expensive. The players are, effectively, creating the topic as they investigate it, so these relationships will mean that the topics will fit into the game background. This, however, is a complicated issue that doesn’t apply to investigating people, and so I will come back to it later.

Some elements have a relatively low incorporation cost or high number of dice for their discovery cost, because they also introduce complications into the personae’s lives. For example, discovering that someone is a huge fan of first edition D&D books is useful, because it suggests an ideal gift. Quite an expensive ideal gift, however, and one that may not be easily available, so that adds story potential to the creation of the action that will build the relationship.

While the number of dice granted will always be positive, and normally not more than one or two, the incorporation cost can be negative. This is necessary because of the mechanics for building a theory, as I will discuss in the next post.

Not all the elements discovered in this step need to contribute to a theory. At least some of them should, because the theory is typically the purpose of the investigation, but there are other options. This is one of the places in which a persona can discover a special element that grants a bonus to some other task. These elements have discovery costs, but their other statistics may be quite different.

Any subject has a number of elements available for discovery. Only the ones that have been discovered are known to be true of the subject, however. Other elements may be true of different examples of that sort of thing (different kami, for example), and elements that are not inconsistent with what is known may also be true of this subject. It is possible that the personae have simply not learned everything about it yet. Nevertheless, those elements cannot be used in play because, even if they are true, the personae do not yet know that, and so cannot use them.

The final stage of discovery is creating the theory. How does that work?


The investigation phase of discovery does not involve any die rolls. Instead, the players describe how the persona is investigating the subject, and describe something of what she finds. This is tied to the game mechanics by elements.

The elements of this phase describe things that the persona does to investigate. Each element has two statistics: a cost, and a number of dice. A player may only incorporate elements with a total cost equal to or less than her persona’s score in the investigation ability. That is, if she has a score of 4, the total cost of the elements used to describe the investigation must be 4 or less. In addition, because the elements describe how the persona investigates, each can only be used once. It isn’t a single action; it represents the application of a certain approach to the persona’s investigation of the subject.

The higher the number of dice, the better, because these are the dice that the player gets to keep when rolling for the next stage of the discovery, when the persona puts together what she has discovered to provide information that will be useful in developing a theory. However, the default investigation elements, available to any persona, will have a higher cost than the number of dice that they provide. The simplest benefit of a higher score in the investigation ability is that it allows a persona to use more of them, and thus have more dice to keep. However, a high score may also allow access to a limited number of more effective elements. Personae might also gain access to effective elements in play, as mentioned earlier. For example, if a character gave the personae her diary in play, the element “Read her diary”, which might cost 1 point and give 4 dice, would become available to all the personae. For general elements, personae might learn effective investigation techniques.

While the persona’s player describes how she is investigating, the other players describe what she finds. This is important, to keep all the players involved, and also because the investigation might involve the persona talking to characters. In such a case, the other players take on the roles of the characters. If the persona is investigating something that is not alive, the other players just describe what she finds. The players introduce elements when saying what the persona uncovers.

These elements do not interpret the findings, because that is the job of the next stage. They simply describe the immediate results of the investigation. For some things, these elements will be defined by the game, and there will be suggestions for everything, but for many topics the players can make them up. If the personae are trying to find out what a character likes, for example, the players can just say things that are plausible things for a person to say in those circumstances. They do need to define the element, however, because that will be important in the next stage, when the persona works out what she has discovered.

Every element must be played out, the players describing what the personae and characters do. The investigation ends when the persona’s player has described how she is applying every element, and the other players have described what she finds. At this point, there should be two or three elements on the table, giving a superficial description of the evidence that the persona has found. (I find that I’m tending towards thinking of the elements as cards, in which case they might literally be on the table.)

Next, the persona describes what she has discovered, but that is the next stage, and will have its own post.

The Basis of Discovery

Discovery is also supposed to be an important part of Kannagara. In the grand concept, the discovery in question is things like discovering how to transform yourself into a kannagi, but discovering what sort of food someone likes so that you can cook her the perfect dinner falls under the same general category, and that’s the case that has come up first.

This is also a somewhat easier case than the profound discoveries about the universe, or about the secrets of the setting, because it does not raise the problem of whether the players should know things that the personae do not. The preferences of a particular character can be decided while playing through the discovery without undermining the consistency of the whole setting, and the sudden realisation of the truth is not, in this case, supposed to be a big moment for the players. There’s also no problem, I think, with accepting that the success of the discovery, measured in terms of the number of dice the personae keep for the assessment, reflects how well the personae understand the character’s preferences, and the players will not feel that they “need” to have the same understanding. That is, the players do not have to describe the character’s preferences in great detail just because the results of the investigation mean that the personae understand all the details.

I do want to use the same basic rule structure for all kinds of discovery, so this is a good place to define the first draft of those rules. Obviously, they could change beyond recognition in later revisions, but I have to start somewhere.

The discovery rules have three stages. First, the player describes how the persona is investigating the problem, and describes something of what she finds. Other players may also contribute to the description of what the investigating persona finds, even though their personae are not involved in this part of the investigation. No dice are rolled at this stage. Instead, the elements incorporated into the investigation give the player dice to keep at the next step.

In the second step, the player rolls her persona’s investigation skill, and keeps a number of dice determined by the elements that were incorporated into the investigation description. The result of the roll determines what information the player can describe the persona as having discovered. This information also takes the form of elements, which are used in the final step.

This third step is the generation of a theory. Once all the personae who want to have gathered information, and shared it with each other, each persona can try to create a theory. The number of dice to keep is determined in the previous stage, while the number of dice rolled is the relevant knowledge. This theory is primarily described in terms of game effects, and a higher result on the roll results in more favourable effects. This represents a better understanding of the situation.

This structure keeps all the players involved as much as possible. Everyone is involved in the investigation stage, and every persona gets her own information stage. Finally, each persona can try to generate a theory, so everyone can be involved at this point, too. Personae with better knowledge and better investigation abilities will, however, do better at it than others, and have their chance to shine.

I will describe each of the stages individually in the following posts.

Putting Numbers on Bonds

In order to make the rules for building relationships definite, I need to start attaching numbers to it. The best place to start is with the strength of relationships, since everything will develop from there.

A strong relationship is, let us say, a score of 6. This allows for a lot of differentiation between relationships; the average result of keeping 2 dice is only one higher than the minimum possible result from keeping 6. Of course, relationships can be even stronger than that, but we will assume that 6 is a normal maximum, and probably the default value for a father’s relationship with his children.

When you are building a relationship, you can try new positive actions at any time. Even if they do not improve the relationship, they will not make things worse, and I want to retain that in the game. The only limit is time. For a rough approximation, suppose that you are keeping the same number of dice for both the action and the character’s reaction to it. The maximum possible roll is 6N, where N is the number of dice you are keeping, and the maximum possible reaction total is 12N, because it is doubled. In order to improve the total, the difficulty must be no higher than 6N-1. If you roll the maximum possible result on the reaction total, the difficulty for the next action roll is 6N-1 if the running total, R, is such that R-(12N-R)=6N-1, or 2R-12N=6N-1, or 2R=18N-1. So, the highest possible total is 9 times the number of dice you are keeping.

This is too hard to reach, however, so we should set things a bit lower. 8 times the number of dice would be reasonable. Let us say that you need to be keeping 6 dice to build a really strong relationship, and set the difficulty at 8 times the level of relationship at which you are aiming.

How would we get that many dice? First, there’s the question of creating the action. We could use the same difficulty scale as the matsuri, with a base of one, so that just doing something generic lets you keep one die, and adding personalisation lets you keep more. In that case, getting to keep six dice would have a conception cost of 13 and a difficulty of 32. That should be just about possible for people keeping three dice to devise the action, because they can get the difficulty down to 27, and it’s reasonable for people with four. That means that, according to the rules, people who are decent but not incredible can create the actions that let them build a really good relationship. This is reasonable; building good relationships is not the province of an elite few in real life.

What about making the action appropriate to the character? That brings us back to the question of investigation and discovery, and so needs to be the subject of a different post. However, we do know that getting six dice should be just possible for people keeping three dice, and a reasonable target for people keeping four, again because most people can build good relationships. That will help me to fix the numbers.

Building Relationships

Creating and improving relationships with characters, and quite possibly between personae, should be one of the central activities of personae in Kannagara. Given the design philosophy of the game, that means that we need rules for building a relationship.

I don’t want to introduce something completely new, so I will use the structure of the perspiration stage of the creation mechanics. For creation, the inspiration stage sets the target for the creation, and the effects of the completed work, but that is not necessary for building a relationship. The effect of the completed work is a 1 point improvement in the relationship, and the difficulty depends on the current state of the relationship.

The equivalent of an embodiment roll is a roll to actually do something for the character. Here, the number of dice rolled is determined by the skill necessary to perform the action. Even giving someone a gift requires adherence to the rules of etiquette, after all. The number of dice kept is determined by the nature of the action, and how effective it is likely to be. The action itself will normally be designed using the full creation rules, and other personae may help to design the action. In some cases, they may all be able to participate in carrying it out. In this case, the number of dice to be kept when performing the action to improve the relationship will be an important feature of the thing being created.

Going through this process once will generate progress towards improving the relationship, but it probably will not complete it in most cases. It normally takes more than one action to build a relationship with someone, unless you are aiming for a very weak and casual relationship. So, a level 1 relationship might be within the reach of a single roll, but that should not be expected for one at level 3.

The place of the revision rolls is taken by a roll to assess how the character has reacted to the action, which provides guidance on what the persona should do next. Here, the persona rolls something like empathy, a skill involved in assessing how people feel. The number of dice to be kept depends on how well-suited to the character the action was. This is not the same as the number of dice measuring how effective an action is likely to be in general. Something can be quite minor, but very well suited to someone, or a major undertaking, but not close to her interests.

Note that the actions performed to build the relationship do not need to succeed, although the rules do model the fact that things move more quickly if the actions go well. That is, the result of the roll to perform the action may not be high enough to count as success in the action, while still improving the relationship. This is because, in this context, it really is the thought that counts. Putting a lot of effort into doing something for someone does improve the relationship, even if you are not completely successful in your action. A dismal failure won’t help much, but that’s reflected by the lack of progress personae get if they roll badly.

If you are only aiming for a weak relationship, you do not need to understand the other person well, or adapt to them. This reflects reality. I don’t drink, but if someone buys me a bottle of wine as a gift, that will contribute to making me feel more positive towards her. On the other hand, if she is trying to build a deeper relationship, she needs to find out that I don’t drink. That is reflected in the rolls that take the place of revisions. If the action is well suited to the character, the total on the revision roll is likely to be high, allowing the personae to make fast progress towards a higher relationship target.

This suggests that there will be another stage, before the personae even design the actions they will perform. They will try to find out about the character, to respond to her likes and desires. That links in to the general rules for discovery, and so it is something I will come back to a bit later. First, I need to make the rules for building relationships a little more concrete.

The Ties That Bind

Attitudes are not quite the same as relationships. A character might really trust a persona, believing that the persona never lies and always keeps her promises, without feeling that he has any particular tie to her. If she tells him something, he will probably believe it, but most of the time he doesn’t think about her, and she probably doesn’t think about him. The same applies to most of the other attitudes, although it is harder to see how it could be true of love and hate.

In game terms, however, I want to make relationships into something separate from attitudes, even for love and hate. The relationship between a persona and a character is a single number, and it is the same on both sides. There are no default relationships, so even a score of 1 in a relationship is significant. In cases where it matters, the same number is used on both sides; relationships, in game terms, have to be mutual. That means, for example, that a persona who has a strong relationship with a kami uses the same number for determining whether the kami answers her requests, and in determining her responses to the kami.

To give relationships an impact on the game, I want to use them as bonuses or penalties to the number of dice rolled for other actions. If a persona is trying to help someone she loves, she can get bonus dice to roll, increasing her chances of performing at the peak of her ability. Similarly, if someone she trusts has told her that a course of action is the wrong one, she takes a penalty to perform it; her confidence is undermined because, at the back of her mind, she wonders whether she is doing the right thing.

While these bonuses and penalties emphasise the importance of relationships, requiring them for every roll would really bog down play. The players would have to decide which characters might be affected, and thus which relationships were relevant, for every action. That would take far too long. Instead, I want to borrow an idea from FATE, specifically its use of invoking and compelling Aspects.

If a player wants her persona to get a bonus from a relationship, she has to spend a point from a resource statistic. That gets one relationship as a bonus to the number of dice to roll for one test, as long as the group agrees that the relationship is relevant and appropriate. If no-one else thinks the relationship is relevant, there is no bonus, but the player does not have to spend a point. Similarly, the relationship might not be appropriate; if the relationship is strong, but the attitudes on both sides are hatred and contempt, the relationship cannot provide a bonus to attempts to help the character.

In this case, the player may spend the point after rolling the dice without the bonus. It might make more “sense” to require the point to be spent first, but I suspect it is more fun in play this way around. In addition, while a player can only invoke a particular relationship once on a given roll, she can invoke other relationships as long as she has points to spend. (Note that, if the player starts off with fewer dice to roll than she keeps, she will have to reroll all the dice when she invokes a relationship. If she started with more, then she can just roll more dice.)

On the other hand, another player can give a player a point to say that a particular relationship causes problems. The second player receives the point, and then can choose whether to take the relationship as a penalty on the rolled dice, or to abandon the action out of consideration for the relationship. Of course, this is also subject to the group agreeing that the relationship is relevant and appropriate. In this case, the relationship can be invoked before the player rolls the dice, because one of the options is abandoning the action. Other players may also invoke the relationship after the roll, as long as the roll succeeded. In this case, the acting player may choose to declare that she never took the action in the first place, or she may adjust the dice and roll again. If she started off with more dice than she kept, she will need to reroll everything, but if she started off with fewer, she can just roll additional dice.

I think it would be a good idea to have a limit on the number of points that players can use to invoke other personae’s relationships to cause trouble. A simple way to do this is to have it cost one point from the invoking player’s pool, but have it grant two points to the other player. Of course, players will need an initial score in the pool, but that is no problem. The precise nature of this resource statistic is something to be decided later. Next, we need to start looking at how personae can change attitudes and build relationships with characters.

Using Attitudes

The most important function of attitudes in Kannagara will be in social interactions. An atttitude will often determine how many dice a player keeps when rolling to see whether her persona can convince a character to do or believe something.

The simplest example is of a persona trying to convince a character that the kami of the shrine really did speak to her and give her a message for the character. The difficulty for this roll is likely to be quite high, as most people do not readily believe that the kami send them messages. The player rolls a number of dice equal to the persona’s level in the relevant social skill, because the more skilled the persona is, the more likely she is to be convincing. The number of dice kept, however, is equal to the strength of the character’s trust in the persona. If he really trusts her, then he is likely to believe her even if she is not generally good at persuading people. On the other hand, if he does not trust her at all, she cannot convince him. She doesn’t get to keep any dice, so she cannot beat the difficulty.

It is almost as straightforward when a persona is trying to convince a character to help her. In that case, the character’s love for the persona would determine how many dice to keep. On the other hand, if the persona is trying to get a character to do something because it will be good for the character, the character’s hope in the persona may be the relevant score. If the character’s hope is high, he expects to get benefits from the persona, and so it is easy to persuade him that doing something with the persona will be good for him. If the action has nothing to do with the persona, then trust is probably more appropriate; the issue is whether the character believes the persona when she says that this will be good for him.

Negative attitudes mean that a persona cannot convince a character to do things in that way. If a character loves a persona, but also doubts her, then the persona can get that character to do things to help her, but cannot convince him that she is telling the truth, in general. If a character actively doubts a persona, then he will check even if she tells him that the sky is blue.

If the action in question involves another character, then attitudes to the third character provide bonus or penalty dice to roll. If a persona is trying to convince one character that another character is lying to him, then the level of the first character’s doubt in the second would be a bonus to the number of dice to roll, while positive trust in the second character would be a penalty. Similarly, love is a bonus to rolls to convince a character to benefit the person they love, and a penalty to rolls to convince the character to harm that person, and the opposite for hate.

Sometimes, two attitudes might interact. For example, consider a persona trying to convince a character that she can do something unlikely, such as talk to the kami. Trust might seem appropriate, but in this case, that really measures whether the character thinks that the persona believes what she is saying. The question of whether she can really do what she claims is more to do with awe. If the character has high trust in the character, but no sense that she is special in any way, his reaction will be to believe that she thinks she can talk to the kami, but not believe that she can actually do so. So, in this case, awe would determine the number of dice to keep, but trust would provide additional dice to roll.

This means that someone having a negative attitude to a persona will almost always be a problem for the persona. The exception is fear, which would serve as dice to keep when trying to intimidate a character into doing something. Fear, however, also serves as bonus dice to choose to harm the persona when the character thinks he can get away with it, because harming the persona makes punishment less likely. On the other hand, if a character has a positive attitude to the persona, this is good for the persona. This motivates personae to build positive attitudes, which is one aim of the game.

Attitudes, however, are not quite relationships. Attitudes can be one-sided, whereas a genuine relationship is not. In the next post, I want to look at how to represent relationships, and at how that interacts with attitudes.