Yeah, I checked yesterday, and part 2 was online. I just finished part the first yesterday, and got a few minutes of part 2 in on my way to work this morning.
I really enjoyed the PDF, and am thinking of stealing your sweet 3-column landscape layout for my own use.
Even though I am only a few minutes into part 2, I’m liking it more than the first part (which I also liked quite a bit).
I think that most of my feedback for part 1 is kind of nit-picky, but I’ll share it. Feel free to call bs/who-cares/etc. on any of this:
The game sounded very rules-heavy rather than description-heavy. This is to be expected the first few times playing MG, but you need to be careful as a GM to push the players for more description about their actions. I do not have specific instances that I can call out at the moment, but I believe that (especially during fight Conflicts) there were some helper dice handed over with little or no description of how the other mouse was helping, or even of the spot-lighted mouse’s specific actions. This is very much NOT the case in the social conflicts, which seemed to have much better description from the players.
There were a couple of times where you asked the players which skill they were using (“Are you rolling Fighter or Hunter?”) rather than using their mouse’s described actions to determine that. This might be related to my previous nit-pick.
I remember you dis-allowing the use of Predator-wise for a helper die based on the fact that “these are weasels, and if Weasel-wise exists, then that is what should be used” (I’m paraphrasing). I’m not sure I agree with that. Again, more input/description from the players is also really helpful here, and it’s ok to nudge them in that direction if they’re not doing it on their own.
Player: My mouse kneels down, examining the various tracks. He traces a few of them with his fingers, apparently in deep thought as he says, “Based on my extensive experience in dealing with weasels, I’m fairly sure that there were…” (breaking out of character) how many, GM?
Player: My mouse kneels down, examining the various tracks. He traces a few of them with his fingers, apparently in deep thought as he says, “Based on my extensive experience in dealing with predators of all types, I’m fairly sure that there were…” (breaking out of character) how many, GM?
It didn’t feel to me as if your players actually felt a lot of impact from their Conditions.
Along those lines, I also felt that some of the Conflict compromises were a little weak.
I don’t recall hearing you do the end-of-session artha stuff after the first session. Or a prologue at the beginning of the second. I would consider doing these, and possibly even give some kind of extra bonus to a player who delivers a great prologue, in character.
I also don’t recall the players setting their characters’ Goals at the beginning of either session. I really believe that having the players choose and write their own Goals is important. Having a list of Goals prepared for players who have a hard time coming up with one on their own is also a good idea.
I think there may have been a few rule-breaks in there, but not anything really major.
Getting past the nit-picky stuff, I really, really like this adventure. I like that your GM’s Turn sets up a clear initial path, then immediately provides several paths, each with its own costs and rewards, and that you go straight into a Players Turn that pretty much demands that the players choose at least one of those paths before “locking down” the game again into the next GM’s Turn.
tl;dr: It’s a GREAT adventure. I recommend pushing your players for more description, and trying to make them feel the danger/impact/consequences of their Conditions more.