I like this idea. It would play out in a similar was as Dungeon World's "Bonds" and could be a very useful feature, IMO.

I don't know that it has to be part of character creation at all. A relationship could just be a special-purpose asset. You establish your relationship by giving the other player a card. That relationship does not have to be reciprocated, it just means that your cards would get a boost/penalty in obstacles where you were participating with a friend/rival.

After that it's all about the role-play. But, from a narrator point of view, he could see the relationships building (whether reflected in the writing or the way the cards are being played) even if they players didn't necessarily reflect all of their attachments in their writing.

I think I'd like to see it appear as a second round of character creation. For those folks familiar with the Apocalypse World style games, particularly Dungeon World, I'd highly recommend taking a look at the relationship questions on the character sheets for that game.

Whether the effects of this is mechanical or purely for role-play flavor is irrelevant to me.

I agree there should be a mechanical way to use a relationship. :)

The disadvantage of role-playing it out is that it has no game effect. It has the same story effect either way, but having an in-game mechanic where your friends help you more and your rivals help you less would make for more variety in the obstacle-math.

Any of these options can be just, you know, roleplayed out. Might be simplest if you have a flip card for other characters that you could play as strong/weak/neutral as the scene sees fit.

(This isn't the first case I want cards with variable suits, to be chosen by the player when they are played.)

...Or Tom hates Fred secretly. I don't see a need to get the Narrator involved at all...unless you are talking about relationships to NPCs. I see your relationship cards as being very one-sided. And something that can be withdrawn should you feel you want to.

Relationships don't have to be symmetrical: Alice loves Bob, but Bob hates Alice.

The trick here is going to be making sure that both parties (or possibly more?) involved in a relationship can both consent reasonably to the relationship. Maybe an ability for someone to pick a card and leave the other slots on it open for someone else to pick up with the option of backing out until the game fires off?

I wouldn't be against having a relationship card, but it would need to be with the narrator.
It wouldn't be a fun or creative game if someone said, 'I have a good relationship with your character, you have to take my side' to another player

Perhaps you could have a card thats ally or enemy and if the story teller sees fit you could use that card to call in a favor or swing a situation one direction.

I propose you get 1 "relationship card" for every 3 players. When you give it you specify whether it is a Positive or a Negative relationship. You can withdraw these cards at any time and reassign them to another player.

It occurs to me that this could also benefit the game mechanic. If all the cards played on an obstacle are "partnered" it could thrown an "uncertain" outcome a weak outcome (or a weak into a strong one) by counting all the "partner" pairs as part of the positive card count.

Conversely rivals "pairs" work against you counting as negative card counts. Which means they could balance out if both rivals and partners play on the same obstacle.

I like the way you think, David!

When you create a character you could make it optional to have a stack of "Partner" and a "Rival" assets that you give to other players.

Then you could play those as assets in the game during your moves. It would certainly show you the bonds between the players.