Wide roots (Matriarch’s move)
Dear Gregor Vuga, two sessions ago, we had some doubts about the Matriarch’s move Wide roots:
“Wide roots: When you meet someone new, you can tell them how you’re related through someone dead, absent or lost and you gain a bond with each other (p. 95).”
We had played a one-shot demo several weeks before, but it was so good we decided to go on and play a real saga, with the addition of a new friend as a player.
He created a new character, a Wanderer, and therefore no one gave relationships to him and he gave no relationships to the others, in return, as the rules state (p. 106).
During the game, of course, the Wanderer met the Matriarch and the Matriarch’s player wanted to use Wide roots on the Wanderer but, just to be polite and considerate, he asked to the Wanderer’s player: “Is it ok if maybe we can be relatives?”
The Wanderer’s players answered: “I’d rather not” and the Matriarch’s player said “As you wish” in return, and he didn’t use the move.
Therefore, what happened in our game was not problematic at all but, nonetheless, some questions began to form in my mind.
1. Can one use Wide roots on another player’s character or it can be used only only on NPCs?
2. Have I really to ask permission to another player every time I want to use Wide roots on their character? Is not just having the move enough justification to say “I’m going to use it!”?
3. When the move says “related”, does it mean “family related” or can it also mean just “connected in some way”?
📌
As a general rule, I think it is always healthy to have players able to veto something they really hate, for whatever reason. By the same token, they should only use that right in extreme circumstances.
But I honestly don’t see what the problem with that move is. You have a complete stranger walk into town, and it turns out they aren’t as much of a stranger as you first thought they were. That’s the essence of a good, dramatic story right there. If the wanderer spends the whole game not connecting with anyone, they won’t have very much to do.
And I agree that it shouldn’t have to mean “family related” – as with all PbtA games, the best moves are the ones which are open to interpretation.
I don’t think this is so much a mechanical question that I can answer with authority but more a social contract part of the system, so…depends on the group. I tend to always ask the player “are you ok with this?” or “how would you do it?” in situations like these so it’s up to you guys.
I’m on my phone and I don’t have my book at hand so I’ll have to check the move later to answer more specifically from the rules angle.
Thanks for your answers.
So, while we’re waiting for Gregor Vuga to get his hands on the rulebook, James Graham, I just wanted to say that I don’t see that move as problematic in itself: I wanted to discuss about those questions with the other members of this community, to listen to their opinion, as we deed, in fact.
On 1. & 2. You can use it on a PC, sure. Although I’d allow them to veto it, kinda like you would do when setting up Hx or whatever.
3. As intended it’s meant to be family but you could make it a different kind of relation if it makes more sense.
Ok, thanks again! 😉