Advice Request

Mouse Guard Getting Started with Mouse Guard
1

Hey All,

i’m blackhathedgehog, a new member of the forum! i’m here to ask for some guidance about how to run my current (rather rowdy) Patrol. We’ve been really enjoying the game so far, but i’m looking on how to step-up my game.

Some background:

  • i have no RPG experience other than a few informal games back in college
  • None of the six players of the Patrol have any RPG experience at all
  • We’ve been playing for a few months (Grain Peddler twice, then we just completed our fifth mission last weekend)
  • i’m still defining player expectations for what sort of universe they want to explore

So far, i’ve mostly been focused on modifying missions either from the rulebook or from session reports that are available online – they’ve been a great asset and thanks to everyone who has ever contributed a Mouse Guard session report on this website or others.

i have various gaps in my own play (of course, as a new GM), but i’m looking less for tips to improve myself and more for potential directions to challenge the Patrol. Currently we have:

–

  • Patrol Leader
  • Mouse-orientated, mostly focused on journalism and record-keeping. Not really much for fighting and recently has almost completely lost control of the Patrol (eg, everyone walks over him all the time). Currently working with the player to help setup a backbone.

(OLD Belief): It is not enough to only know that something occurs, but also why, in order to find the solution.
Belief: It is my responsibility to teach my patrol new skills
Instinct: I must note down important information and observations as soon as possible.

  • Patrol Guard 1
  • Independent, unnaturally talented with fast fingers and ability to create tools. Has difficulty with Tenderpaws, due to an unfortunate habit of getting them killed.

Belief: Even the most useless-seeming things can be repurposed and given new life.
Instinct: If you don’t have what you need but you have the materials to make it, make it.

  • Patrol Guard 2
  • Combat-focused mouse. A small war-hero of the Winter War

Belief: Every problem has a solution if you stick with it long enough!
Instinct: If time allows, preparing now saves time later.

  • Guard Mouse 1
  • Healer-focused mouse. Generally values the safety and emotional strength of the Patrol over solely completing the mission.

Belief: There’s good to be found in every person and situation.
Instinct: Assist my patrolmates, whether they ask me to or not.

  • Guard Mouse 2
  • Older guard mouse who is worried about missing up a promotion to Patrol Guard. Very specialized into Pathfinding. Extremely impulsive and has a habit of running up to dangerous animals to roll Loremouse to try to talk to them… even though initially he didn’t even have any.

(OLD Belief): Even just one mouse can make a difference.
Belief: Diplomacy trumps aggression for results
Instinct: Always say what’s on my mind.

  • Tenderpaw
  • Reckless. Orphan and former thief. Was persuaded into the Guard after being caught by the Patrol Leader. Number 1 Priority is getting a big sword and swinging it around.

Belief: If I work hard enough, I will always get what I need.
Instinct: If there is action, get involved and make yourself useful. Don’t delay, and don’t hold back!*

Key Challenges That Are Mostly Addressed:

  • There’s a lot of players which means a lot of helper die! For the most part, i’ve been restricting them to two helper die for all tasks (rather than just only conflicts) so not everything has to have an inflated Obstacle value.
  • I tend to add at least one semi-filler obstacle to each mission so that more players get the chance to roll. Also, I try to make most obstacles into two or three part tests so that there are more opportunities there.
  • Building on the last point, I tend to use more twists or twist-twists rather than only handing out Conditions so that I can extend the amount of rolls players get in the GM phase.
  • I try to separate the Patrol at some point during the Missions, but I can’t do that every mission or it’s too predictable :slight_smile:

Unresolved Issues:

  • Two missions ago I did a mission that (I thought) had challenged 5 of the 6 mice but at the end of the game every single player thought that their belief went unchallenged! I assume that it’s my fault since every single player didn’t recognize what I was trying to do: How can I try to make it more clear when i’m challenging a particular player’s belief? Or is it just the case of some mice having a bit too abstract BIGs? I would really appreciate advice on this point in particular.

  • A lot of players also means a lot of checks! For the most part, the players have learned that checks are really good (the Tenderpaw player in particular hasn’t figured that out and refuses to hinder/impede/tie). So, in order to deal with that I tend to leave the Missions not-quite-achieved at the end of the GM Turn. This means that players are spending their checks either finalizing the core Mission or their own personal goals. Some players have recently expressed that this isn’t exactly fair: the rulebook often describes the Player Turn as a sort of “sandbox” and that the players get to explore the world somewhat freely (and, of course, recover from conditions). How can I balance player exploration while leaving missions somewhat open-ended?

  • Finally, one of the key issues i’ve been having is the suicidal tendencies of the Tenderpaw and Guard Mouse 2. They both have “Foolish”/”Brave”/“Impetuous” traits so they tend to chunk a surprising amount of die when doing dumb things. They aren’t trying to necessarily be “Big Damn Heroes” and slay the Dragon – they want to befriend the Dragon. Always. This has gotten to such a point that the players have started toying the “No Weasels” line and joking about it - which I obviously need to shut down. I’ve been considering introducing situations where attempting to befriend leads into a Conflict of “imma gonna eat you” but i’m hesitant to have such a punishing Conflict and actually killing a PC for no-good-reason. I did miss out one moment where Lester was trying to discredit the Tenderpaw and the Tenderpaw really wanted to punch Lester – I should have had that happen and pulled the Tenderpaw into a Conflict. The timing would have been particularly disreputeful while the turtle was laying waste to Grasslake!

I’ve conspired with the Patrol Leader to make sure that he uses In-Character RP to keep the mice in check. I’m also certainly planning on trying to introduce a “friendly” weasel who acts just fine for a few missions… but then inevitably betrays the Patrol, of course. So I do have some longer term plans for that.

Anyway, i’d really appreciate any input some of the more experienced GMs might have! I can certainly write up more or go more deeply into past specific examples or future plans but I don’t want to write too much just for my introduction :slight_smile:

2

Hi Hedgehog,

Welcome to the forum.

It looks like your campaign is coming along well, given your group’s lack of experience with roleplaying games. You might be going overboard raising the difficulty of your missions artificially. Additional hazards on top of the two per GM’s Turn that the book prescribes, twisting failed tests rather than assigning conditions, and leaving the missions to be completed during the Players’ Turn, might be too much even for a large patrol to handle.

There’s an easily upset economy to testing opportunities, advancement, and earning checks. Given too many chances to roll, your players will end up with too many scenes during their turn, which is compounded by the fact that they don’t have to spend checks to recover from conditions, because you’re twisting failed rolls rather than hitting them with conditions . . . Do you see how everything ties together?

I’d recommend following the book and running missions that use only two obstacles during the GM’s Turn; conducting at least one as a conflict will give the individual patrolmice more opportunities to earn checks, without deviating from the structure. Don’t limit helping dice, either—the patrol should fail sometimes (and will have to, if they want to increase their skills), and a player always can refuse help (and can further hinder him- or herself with a Trait), so let them weigh help and success against the chance to advance their characters (and the narrative) via failure.

That being said, one of my favorite approaches to game mastering Mouse Guard is leaving the mission hanging so that the players have to choose between resolving aspects of it during their turn, and pursuing their personal agenda. This really brings the character decisions that are driven by Beliefs, Instincts, and Goals to the forefront of play. Another thing that you’ve hit upon already is dividing the patrol on occasion. Keep this in mind when planning your conflicts and complex obstacles (tasks that have to be completed simultaneously; pairs of animals, etc.) as it helps spread around the focus while also limiting the patrol’s ability to help each other.

One other thing—incorporate the characters’ hometowns and relationships into the missions. Even if you’re not hitting everyone’s Beliefs, this is a great way to focus on other aspects of the characters that the players thought were important enough to detail. When I ran a campaign for five players, almost every session involved an assignment in someone’s settlement, and things like an old enemy or friend turning up. Good luck, and be sure to report back and let us know how it goes.

3

Thanks a bunch for your reply! Hopefully this doesn’t take out too much time out of your day and i do truly appreciate it.

There’s an easily upset economy to testing opportunities, advancement, and earning checks. Given too many chances to roll, your players will end up with too many scenes during their turn, which is compounded by the fact that they don’t have to spend checks to recover from conditions, because you’re twisting failed rolls rather than hitting them with conditions . . . Do you see how everything ties together?

Going to address this particualr point first.

To make sure i understand what you are saying, i’ll try to restate it in my own words:

If the GM too often twists and does not give out conditions allows players:

  • Get more Checkboxes on their character sheets than is typical (a twist => at least 1 more test).
  • Earn lots of checks for the Player Turn
  • Not have to spend those checks recovering from Conditions

This results in:

  • Players advancing and having higher-than-typical Skills
  • Being “too free” during the Player turn because they get a ton of actions.

Note that usually i deal out a lot of Conditions during the Player Turn (they almost always “Succeed with Condition” - i haven’t yet been able to improvise a “oh well you’ll have to deal with this next Session!”), so they do tend to have “some” conditions. At the moment, the players earn pretty much exactly 2 checks every GM turn to give you a solid number.

This was my thought process:

  • Typically the game is played with 3 Patrol Mice (typical 3?)
  • Beginner players probably don’t earn many checks, but more advanced Patrols can probably earn somewhere between 1-3 checks reliably. It’s possible to earn more (espiecially in Conflicts or later in the campaign when players can do things like spend 2 persona points for 2 die and then lose 2 dice for 2 checks), but i’m just using this as a baseline.
  • Even-more-advanced players might do things like earn checks then spend them in the GM turn and go back down to 0.

So this means that most 3-player Patrols might typically start the Player Turn with 4-6 Checks. They might spend them as follows:

  • 1 Checks to resolve the Capital-M Mission
  • 2 Check to resolve Personal Goals
  • 1 Check to recover from Conditions
  • 1-2 Checks to explore Side Quests (eg, Marvin’s chair in “Deliver the Mail”)
  • 0-1 Checks to do personal development (meet other mice, explore, build things, help the community, instruct Patrol members)

The bottom two categories are the truly “interesting” ones, but they have to be balanced with the first two: making the players decide which is more important is good! Recovering from Conditions is dull, but necessary, and does require a balance of “make myself weaker” versus “develop my character” espiecially since the Embodiment Award is much easier to get if you keep your Conditions around. So making players choose to recover is also a small mini-game even if it’s not as dramatic.

However, my Patrol always starts with 6 Checks and can easily hit 8. Since i’m not handing out a lot of Conditions, the obvious point (to me) is to make the “Personal Goals” and “Capital-M Mission” require more Player-Turn checks - and thus, have harder Missions with larger twists. In addition, so many players someone hasn’t completed their Personal Goal so usually 2 or 3 checks are spent there.

But, instead of having “hard Missions” i can just really lay out the Conditions instead. This has a similar effect in terms of limiting checks. Is that what you’re suggesting?

It looks like your campaign is coming along well, given your group’s lack of experience with roleplaying games. You might be going overboard raising the difficulty of your missions artificially. Additional hazards on top of the two per GM’s Turn that the book prescribes, twisting failed tests rather than assigning conditions, and leaving the missions to be completed during the Players’ Turn, might be too much even for a large patrol to handle.

This is a good point: i may be making this more difficult then they need to be.

It’s unusual for me to houserule games, and i’m certainly thrilled with Mouse Guard’s ruleset in general! But here’s my fear for what i might consider a “bad Mission” and what drives most of my decision making:

  • Obstacle 1 is moderately difficult. Patrol fails roll. i allow them to succeed with a Condition and advance the plot
  • Obstacle 2 is rather difficult. My intention here is for the Patrol to fail, so that i can introduce a twist and leave the Mission unfinished. Entire Patrol pitches in, Nature is tapped, Gear used, Traits Triggered. They succeed (because they literally can roll 20 die)!
  • At the start of the Player Turn, the Patrol spends a few checks recovering from conditions from Obstacle 1 and the Weather, leaving them still with 3 checks to do whatever they want. They do so.

While the Players “overcoming the impossible” is a really cool highlight and an engaging player expierence, the Mission really breaks down into one really important and tense die roll… then a bunch of condition recovery and stuff that “didn’t really matter”. So that’s what i’m trying to avoid. That said, my intuition here could be wrong and these sort of missions are actually really fun - the unlikely success is such a highlight the “boringness” of the rest of the session isn’t really considered.

So this is ultimately my motivation for:

  • Limiting to 2 helpers (=> harder to chuck 20 die and disrupt “my sacred plan”)
  • Heavy reliance on Twists over Conditions during the GM Turn
  • Adding a 3rd Hazard in the GM Turn
  • Leave Missions incomplete at the Start of the Player Turn

Doing none of these probably would result in the earlier situation happening a bit too often with so many mice. But that doesn’t mean i don’t have to do none, i can always introduce 2 or 3 of these 4, and that also makes it a little more unpredictable for the Patrol. And even some things (eg, helper die) can be dealt with more organically: i present a test that requires a skill that is very rare in the Patrol or i seperate the Patrol so they have a limited number of helpers.

i would love to introduce Conflicts more often! However, Conflicts take a really long time with my Group (out of the 4 Conflicts we’ve done out of 2 Grain Peddler + 5 Sessions so far, each time the Team Leaders suffer crippling Decision Paralysis). So i have to be very careful about that. On the other hand, it’s an extremely organic solution to a lot of the problems we are having and the “Compromise” ruleset is already so dynamic and has a lot of nuance.

Keep this in mind when planning your conflicts and complex obstacles (tasks that have to be completed simultaneously; pairs of animals, etc.) as it helps spread around the focus while also limiting the patrol’s ability to help each other.

This is a great tool: it’s a way for me to seperate the Patrol very temporarily. One of my current struggles is making sure that the Patrol doesn’t always have the “Best” character do every test: it should often be the one whose BIGs line up the most to the test, or, failing that, the Mouse who first jumps into action.

One other thing—incorporate the characters’ hometowns and relationships into the missions. Even if you’re not hitting everyone’s Beliefs, this is a great way to focus on other aspects of the characters that the players thought were important enough to detail. When I ran a campaign for five players, almost every session involved an assignment in someone’s settlement, and things like an old enemy or friend turning up. Good luck, and be sure to report back and let us know how it goes.

This is a good idea. Our most recent Mission was in the hometown of one of the Patrol Guards and that part was a great success. At first, i tried to keep the Patrol as far away from their hometowns because i was still figuring out how to GM and very unconfident in roleplaying NPCs, and i wanted to avoid another layer of complexity. i’ll certainly try to introduce this more often.

However, building up on “bringing up enemies”: the Patrol almost entirely “opted-out” of having Enemies (i think only 2 of the 6?). The last mission i tried to introduce a Mouse Enemy for the first time i got some backlash.

–

So in summary:

  • More Conflicts (TODO: run Conflicts in less than 2 hours)
  • Try to figure out tasks that need to be done at the same time (but close to one another) so that each mouse can not only contribute, it helps split the Patrol in half and act more like the game is typically ran.
  • More Conditions, Less Twists
  • Let the Patrol decide how many mice should help (and then deal out the conditions so that they understand the risks)
  • Try to introduce more Friends/Enemies (TODO: introduce Enemies without the players getting upset)

PS: i’ll probably pull out the list of Patrol members and create a separate thread for them in the appropriate forum later tonight. Not sure how the forum culture prefers “super-threads” for a single group where discussion is consolidated or splitting up threads into lots of board-appropriate topics.

4

welcome, good to have new folks coming into the MG community. I leapt into D&D after a few pickup games and immediately launched a group and ran campaigns for a while despite having about nothing in player-side gaming.

  • Patrol Leader
  • Mouse-orientated, mostly focused on journalism and record-keeping. Not really much for fighting and recently has almost completely lost control of the Patrol (eg, everyone walks over him all the time). Currently working with the player to help setup a backbone.

(OLD Belief): It is not enough to only know that something occurs, but also why, in order to find the solution.
Belief: It is my responsibility to teach my patrol new skills
Instinct: I must note down important information and observations as soon as possible.

The new Belief is great, Help him stick with that for a bit, but don’t place too much emphasis on challenging from a GM seat. Also encourage other players to challenge the Belief. In some cases, the Ptl Ldr could play against this by standing aside to watch the patrol mates learn something from their own attempts (and/or failures). The Instinct is fairly bland, and looks difficult for other players to trigger. It reads mroe like a Goal than Instinct.

  • Patrol Guard 1
  • Independent, unnaturally talented with fast fingers and ability to create tools. Has difficulty with Tenderpaws, due to an unfortunate habit of getting them killed.

Belief: Even the most useless-seeming things can be repurposed and given new life.
Instinct: If you don’t have what you need but you have the materials to make it, make it.

That Belief is weak and doesn’t seem focused on the PC mouse or purpose of service in the Guard. I’d say that’s where to make growth first. It’s difficult to challenge; because, there is an easy way to ignore whether an obstacle impacts or not. So, it’s not easy to make an impactful challenge; since, the Belief isn’t connected to self or service. Even placing a relationship in danger doesn’t mean much in relation. That Instinct is simply wordy, but it’s not all too bad. It probably can’t be triggered by fellow players very well, so there’s some room for growth. Also, the idea of making anything needed could lead to fishing to gain tests.

  • Patrol Guard 2
  • Combat-focused mouse. A small war-hero of the Winter War

Belief: Every problem has a solution if you stick with it long enough!
Instinct: If time allows, preparing now saves time later.

Again, the Belief is fairly weak and disconnected from self and service, but could connect with relationships with some description. It’s difficult for the challenge; because, it would be easy to ignore if inconvenient. That’s, rather than play against by saying, “This problem has no solution!” the mouse could say, “That’s just not an engaging problem.” Having a relationship who needs help to solve a problem heightens the challenge, but that’s a gimmick which will be repetitive. The Instinct is not urgent, doesn’t have a trigger - action model. The phrasing seems to work, but this mouse should be more specific about what preparation is instinctual based on experience and habits.

  • Guard Mouse 1
  • Healer-focused mouse. Generally values the safety and emotional strength of the Patrol over solely completing the mission.

Belief: There’s good to be found in every person and situation.
Instinct: Assist my patrolmates, whether they ask me to or not.

The Belief seems pleasing, and wouldn’t be difficult to challenge, but it’s kinda weak. There’s a space for growth by specifying the good virtues or good resources which this mouse seeks out or sees easily. Consider this, “Every mouse has some honor and dignity within.” That’s kinda more specific and might be more personal if there is a background that relates or a relationship that relates. It would make this easier to challenge. The Instinct is good, though a little bland.

  • Guard Mouse 2
  • Older guard mouse who is worried about missing up a promotion to Patrol Guard. Very specialized into Pathfinding. Extremely impulsive and has a habit of running up to dangerous animals to roll Loremouse to try to talk to them… even though initially he didn’t even have any.

(OLD Belief): Even just one mouse can make a difference.
Belief: Diplomacy trumps aggression for results
Instinct: Always say what’s on my mind.

In both Belief and Instinct there is some need to develop more specific details of the situation that the Instinct relates to or the Belief applies.

  • Tenderpaw
  • Reckless. Orphan and former thief. Was persuaded into the Guard after being caught by the Patrol Leader. Number 1 Priority is getting a big sword and swinging it around.

Belief: If I work hard enough, I will always get what I need.
Instinct: If there is action, get involved and make yourself useful. Don’t delay, and don’t hold back!*

These are quite good. I’d lose the added text from the Instinct: “Don’t delay, and don’t hold back!” Those are better as a portion of the Belief, but aren’t quite appropriate for that. It’s a little wordy and the “useful” condition is a value statement. Still, it works fairly well.

Key Challenges That Are Mostly Addressed:

  • There’s a lot of players which means a lot of helper die! For the most part, i’ve been restricting them to two helper die for all tasks (rather than just only conflicts) so not everything has to have an inflated Obstacle value.
  • I tend to add at least one semi-filler obstacle to each mission so that more players get the chance to roll. Also, I try to make most obstacles into two or three part tests so that there are more opportunities there.
  • Building on the last point, I tend to use more twists or twist-twists rather than only handing out Conditions so that I can extend the amount of rolls players get in the GM phase.
  • I try to separate the Patrol at some point during the Missions, but I can’t do that every mission or it’s too predictable :slight_smile:

Right, lots of players is a challenge for the GM. I’ve run a table group of 6 players, and it was tough to overwhelm them. I encourage you to suggest GM rotation to get the group involved; one possible result could be a side-group splits and the two groups can still collaborate on the stories. That’s certainly not perfect, so I’d also suggest maintaining the Helper restriction (though I would hold that at 3 rather than 2). But, don’t be worried about inflating Obstacles or deflating Obstacles. I’ll explain: they will need passes and fails for advancing, so everyone will have to look at how to attempt tests which will be higher and lower.

I also like to use complex obstacles for a few extra tests.

Unresolved Issues:

  • Two missions ago I did a mission that (I thought) had challenged 5 of the 6 mice but at the end of the game every single player thought that their belief went unchallenged! I assume that it’s my fault since every single player didn’t recognize what I was trying to do: How can I try to make it more clear when i’m challenging a particular player’s belief? Or is it just the case of some mice having a bit too abstract BIGs? I would really appreciate advice on this point in particular.

not your fault when the Belief goes unchallenged. It should be included in your GM role, but the Players also have to look for good moments to bring up the Belief also. That’s a key thing for the players to earn rewards, so they’ve got to take responsibility. They need to make it more clear when the PC mouse plays toward to acts against the Belief. And, looking at the abstract Beliefs and Instincts you’ve outlined, the players need to work on some growth to bring more specific opinions.

  • A lot of players also means a lot of checks! For the most part, the players have learned that checks are really good (the Tenderpaw player in particular hasn’t figured that out and refuses to hinder/impede/tie). So, in order to deal with that I tend to leave the Missions not-quite-achieved at the end of the GM Turn. This means that players are spending their checks either finalizing the core Mission or their own personal goals. Some players have recently expressed that this isn’t exactly fair: the rulebook often describes the Player Turn as a sort of “sandbox” and that the players get to explore the world somewhat freely (and, of course, recover from conditions). How can I balance player exploration while leaving missions somewhat open-ended?

Right; it isn’t entirely fair, and that’s totally alright. The MG world shouldn’t be a world of fair. That often includes the mission design and session roll-out in play. There’s room for rules that provide structure, but that’s not same as fairness. I think that’s a good design to leave some burden on the shoulders of the patrol. Sometimes that is found in problems caused by the patrol which they need to correct, and you might find some good use of highlighting problems caused in their Conditions and Twists and especially in Compromises from Conflicts. Some exploration is nice, but develop some boundaries that are reasonable.

  • Finally, one of the key issues i’ve been having is the suicidal tendencies of the Tenderpaw and Guard Mouse 2. They both have “Foolish”/”Brave”/“Impetuous” traits so they tend to chunk a surprising amount of die when doing dumb things. They aren’t trying to necessarily be “Big Damn Heroes” and slay the Dragon – they want to befriend the Dragon. Always. This has gotten to such a point that the players have started toying the “No Weasels” line and joking about it - which I obviously need to shut down. I’ve been considering introducing situations where attempting to befriend leads into a Conflict of “imma gonna eat you” but i’m hesitant to have such a punishing Conflict and actually killing a PC for no-good-reason. I did miss out one moment where Lester was trying to discredit the Tenderpaw and the Tenderpaw really wanted to punch Lester – I should have had that happen and pulled the Tenderpaw into a Conflict. The timing would have been particularly disreputeful while the turtle was laying waste to Grasslake!

Not sure what to say about that. The idea of suicidal is a bit much, and maybe you can reduce the fighty scenes and limit the action; amp up the drama with mediation, escorting, trekking, rescuing. Also, you can reduce out tests by saying yes or no. So, yes is simply allowing the player to describe the thing they want and permitting it, validating it, and then twisting it to your own desires at a later time–no dice hit the table. So, no is simply redirecting or blocking such as, “no time for that; there are other matters afoot; the bear doesn’t stay to listen to you.” Using the no is harder and very similar to railroading; I feel the trick is to admit that’s vazlid, but that’s just not how the story is going. Using the yes is easier, but don’t let that become overwhelming in the form of getting stuff, talking through problems, and walking over problems.

I’ve conspired with the Patrol Leader to make sure that he uses In-Character RP to keep the mice in check. I’m also certainly planning on trying to introduce a “friendly” weasel who acts just fine for a few missions… but then inevitably betrays the Patrol, of course. So I do have some longer term plans for that.

Anyway, i’d really appreciate any input some of the more experienced GMs might have! I can certainly write up more or go more deeply into past specific examples or future plans but I don’t want to write too much just for my introduction :slight_smile:

Well, I wouldn’t use a ploy of a friendly weasel and inevitably betray. There’s lots of room for the patrol to take actions that impact the attitudes and behaviors of their NPC companions. I’d give the patrol a chance to influence those around them and have an awareness of the dangers around them. That’s fair and more engaging.

5

yeah, this sounds about like a typical campaign, and I don’t think this leads to too-fast advancement. Having a few checks to play into the PT isn’t too free. I think this is a fairly average description.

This was my thought process:

  • Typically the game is played with 3 Patrol Mice (typical 3?)
  • Beginner players probably don’t earn many checks, but more advanced Patrols can probably earn somewhere between 1-3 checks reliably. It’s possible to earn more (espiecially in Conflicts or later in the campaign when players can do things like spend 2 persona points for 2 die and then lose 2 dice for 2 checks), but i’m just using this as a baseline.
  • Even-more-advanced players might do things like earn checks then spend them in the GM turn and go back down to 0.

So this means that most 3-player Patrols might typically start the Player Turn with 4-6 Checks. They might spend them as follows:

  • 1 Checks to resolve the Capital-M Mission
  • 2 Check to resolve Personal Goals
  • 1 Check to recover from Conditions
  • 1-2 Checks to explore Side Quests (eg, Marvin’s chair in “Deliver the Mail”)
  • 0-1 Checks to do personal development (meet other mice, explore, build things, help the community, instruct Patrol members)

The bottom two categories are the truly “interesting” ones, but they have to be balanced with the first two: making the players decide which is more important is good! Recovering from Conditions is dull, but necessary, and does require a balance of “make myself weaker” versus “develop my character” espiecially since the Embodiment Award is much easier to get if you keep your Conditions around. So making players choose to recover is also a small mini-game even if it’s not as dramatic.

However, my Patrol always starts with 6 Checks and can easily hit 8. Since i’m not handing out a lot of Conditions, the obvious point (to me) is to make the “Personal Goals” and “Capital-M Mission” require more Player-Turn checks - and thus, have harder Missions with larger twists. In addition, so many players someone hasn’t completed their Personal Goal so usually 2 or 3 checks are spent there.

But, instead of having “hard Missions” i can just really lay out the Conditions instead. This has a similar effect in terms of limiting checks. Is that what you’re suggesting?

yeah, sounds fairly typical and a good assessment of the average results during a session. I haven’t seen a player use Checks during the GM turn ever in past. I’ve never done it as a player. Now, all I’d say off this is that 4-6 checks across the patrol of 6 would feel low ('cause everyone gets a freebie). But, if you are giving 2-3 obstacles and maybe 2-3 twists or a conflict, that’s still appropriate for the team of 6 to come away with maybe 7-11 checks (which is only 1-2 checks for each player). If the players are getting engaged and earning 3 checks consistently, that’s great! If they’re coming into the PT with 4-6 checks in each session, I’d back off the GM turn events which roll dice to challenge that accumulation of checks–if it’s consistent from session-to-session.

…
So this is ultimately my motivation for:

  • Limiting to 2 helpers (=> harder to chuck 20 die and disrupt “my sacred plan”)
  • Heavy reliance on Twists over Conditions during the GM Turn
  • Adding a 3rd Hazard in the GM Turn
  • Leave Missions incomplete at the Start of the Player Turn

Doing none of these probably would result in the earlier situation happening a bit too often with so many mice. But that doesn’t mean i don’t have to do none, i can always introduce 2 or 3 of these 4, and that also makes it a little more unpredictable for the Patrol. And even some things (eg, helper die) can be dealt with more organically: i present a test that requires a skill that is very rare in the Patrol or i seperate the Patrol so they have a limited number of helpers.

Just to say, I’m not sure how you’re getting 20 dice in the patrol tests–particularly when you limit the Helpers. I had a table group of 6 and they could gather about 12 dice max in tests. That was sorta rare to get the 12 dice; I’d guess the more frequent was about 8 dice on a test when the whole patrol was set on it. On the other points, I agree you’re improvising some good choices. A few extra twists–not loads–drives some added challenge. I’d use a 3rd hazard very rarely; I think the twists, conflicts & compromises, and twists upon twists will go farther to driving the patrol away from completing the mission as they deal with more loose ends and unexpected issues. Well, I guess all the hazards are unexpected too, but that’s a mission design choice. Sometimes I have hazards that are natural elements of the mission and sometimes unrelated challenges that no one guessed would happen.

i would love to introduce Conflicts more often! However, Conflicts take a really long time with my Group (out of the 4 Conflicts we’ve done out of 2 Grain Peddler + 5 Sessions so far, each time the Team Leaders suffer crippling Decision Paralysis). So i have to be very careful about that. On the other hand, it’s an extremely organic solution to a lot of the problems we are having and the “Compromise” ruleset is already so dynamic and has a lot of nuance.

Yeah, conflicts with such large groups is a beast. Even in smaller patrols these are tough. The Compromise is the treasure, and I like that loads. Running the Conflict is tough, but the compromise is the reward for a GM.

…
However, building up on “bringing up enemies”: the Patrol almost entirely “opted-out” of having Enemies (i think only 2 of the 6?). The last mission i tried to introduce a Mouse Enemy for the first time i got some backlash.

Whoa, tell them a hard No on that. Each patrol member should have one or more Enemies. I tend to push more Enemies on the players over time. I feel it is the responsibility of the players to find and secure more Friends beyond the first one.

So in summary:

  • More Conflicts (TODO: run Conflicts in less than 2 hours)
  • Try to figure out tasks that need to be done at the same time (but close to one another) so that each mouse can not only contribute, it helps split the Patrol in half and act more like the game is typically ran.
  • More Conditions, Less Twists
  • Let the Patrol decide how many mice should help (and then deal out the conditions so that they understand the risks)
  • Try to introduce more Friends/Enemies (TODO: introduce Enemies without the players getting upset)

PS: i’ll probably pull out the list of Patrol members and create a separate thread for them in the appropriate forum later tonight. Not sure how the forum culture prefers “super-threads” for a single group where discussion is consolidated or splitting up threads into lots of board-appropriate topics.

I’d say keep Conflicts rare, maybe not more Conflict, but more complex obstacles. Doing complex obstacles, you can drive tasks as simultaneous and limit the helping among the patrol while also illustrating the power they’ve got as a large patrol. They do have power in that way, they can split down and get many tasks done at the same time.

Maybe more Conditions and less Twists, but maybe not. Keep up the variety and offer to get players in tip-top shape from Friends, Enemies, Parents, etc. Using those relationships to offer food, drink, shelter, rest, safety, etc can go a long way toward settling scales when the Conditions are heavy and allow for more Twists. Also, having Enemies offer the assistance is a fun way to unsettle players with favors owed.

I think having limits (house rules if desired) to reduce the Helpers isn’t a big issue. I agree that sometimes you place that as a rule and sometimes you just create the situation in which Helping isn’t sensible.

Yes, use more relationships! of all types!

6

Thanks so much for your response!

*In some cases, the Ptl Ldr could play against this by standing aside to watch the patrol mates learn something from their own attempts (and/or failures). The Instinct is fairly bland, and looks difficult for other players to trigger. It reads mroe like a Goal than Instinct.

*We worked on the new Belief together and both thought that “self-challenging” was a good way to handle the belief, as you suggested. We’re also working on an Instinct. The point about Instincts also being available for other players to trigger is really novel and something i’ll be sure to pass along to the group.

That Instinct is simply wordy, but it’s not all too bad. It probably can’t be triggered by fellow players very well, so there’s some room for growth. Also, the idea of making anything needed could lead to fishing to gain tests.

Right, the Instinct is workable and i’ve encouraged the player to hinder/impede herself to earn checks to build stuff to trigger her Instinct. It hasn’t happened so far (usually the checks are spent elsewhere). Do you think one way I could have another player trigger is it with broken gear?

Again, the Belief is fairly weak and disconnected from self and service, but could connect with relationships with some description. It’s difficult for the challenge; because, it would be easy to ignore if inconvenient. That’s, rather than play against by saying, “This problem has no solution!” the mouse could say, “That’s just not an engaging problem.” Having a relationship who needs help to solve a problem heightens the challenge, but that’s a gimmick which will be repetitive. The Instinct is not urgent, doesn’t have a trigger - action model. The phrasing seems to work, but this mouse should be more specific about what preparation is instinctual based on experience and habits.

Needing to know what kind of preparation she should do is a good way to develop this. Regarding, the belief, i made the initial point of tweaking to slightly to be either “Every problem has a solution if I stick with it long enough!” (making it more egotistical or narcissistic), or “Every problem has a solution if the Guard sticks with it long enough!” (making it more Lawful Good and idealistic) That doesn’t fix the scoping issue you mentioned, but it did fix the some of the disconnection from self-and-service. i’ll bring it up again with the player.

Right, lots of players is a challenge for the GM. I’ve run a table group of 6 players, and it was tough to overwhelm them. I encourage you to suggest GM rotation to get the group involved; one possible result could be a side-group splits and the two groups can still collaborate on the stories. That’s certainly not perfect, so I’d also suggest maintaining the Helper restriction (though I would hold that at 3 rather than 2). But, don’t be worried about inflating Obstacles or deflating Obstacles. I’ll explain: they will need passes and fails for advancing, so everyone will have to look at how to attempt tests which will be higher and lower.

GM rotation is a really fantastic suggestion! We are going to be doing our Winter Session in a few weeks: I’ll probably bring it up around that time. It let’s me get some needed perspective playing as a Patrol Member and it also let’s the players experiment with what sort of world they want to play in, or what they personally envision what Gwendolyn would do in certain situations.

I’m not sure how well the group will accept it – and i’ll have to be sure to phrase it so that it doesn’t sound like i’m throwing in the towel or that it’s some sort of revenge plot – but I do think that’s a really good way to clarify expectations.

Right; it isn’t entirely fair, and that’s totally alright. The MG world shouldn’t be a world of fair. That often includes the mission design and session roll-out in play. There’s room for rules that provide structure, but that’s not same as fairness. I think that’s a good design to leave some burden on the shoulders of the patrol. Sometimes that is found in problems caused by the patrol which they need to correct, and you might find some good use of highlighting problems caused in their Conditions and Twists and especially in Compromises from Conflicts. Some exploration is nice, but develop some boundaries that are reasonable.

Sure, I think I agree with most of the board here that talks about how leaving Missions on the brink of failure is a great story-telling technique.

Not sure what to say about that. The idea of suicidal is a bit much, and maybe you can reduce the fighty scenes and limit the action; amp up the drama with mediation, escorting, trekking, rescuing. Also, you can reduce out tests by saying yes or no. So, yes is simply allowing the player to describe the thing they want and permitting it, validating it, and then twisting it to your own desires at a later time–no dice hit the table. So, no is simply redirecting or blocking such as, “no time for that; there are other matters afoot; the bear doesn’t stay to listen to you.” Using the no is harder and very similar to railroading; I feel the trick is to admit that’s vazlid, but that’s just not how the story is going. Using the yes is easier, but don’t let that become overwhelming in the form of getting stuff, talking through problems, and walking over problems.

Suicidal is probably strong wording on my part. Reckless or complete disregard for safety is the other. Part of it is the Patrol Leader should probably be keeping his inexpierenced Patrol from poking the bear, but… “Yes, No or Roll” is a great tool and something that’s in my note pad but I tend to forget about during live play :frowning:

Making a good point about trying to do a mix of different obstacles. Part of it is me thinking “well what kind of problems would Gwendolyn send nearly 10% of her force to solve?” which tends to imply an animal – but it doesn’t have to be! My next mission is 100% not going to be animal focused, and that might help a little bit. Rescuing is an interesting idea as well! It has that mixture of wilderness/scouting/animal/mouse all in one. It’s also one way to get the Patrol to be stuck in the Wilderness: one player is a little bummed out about not having the chance to Survivalist a shelter + Harvest + Cook a dinner for the Patrol while out in the rain.

Well, I wouldn’t use a ploy of a friendly weasel and inevitably betray. There’s lots of room for the patrol to take actions that impact the attitudes and behaviors of their NPC companions. I’d give the patrol a chance to influence those around them and have an awareness of the dangers around them. That’s fair and more engaging.

Fair enough: I think I worded my post stronger than I actually meant it. It was one of the ways I figured I could toy with “there’s good to be found in every person”. Yeah those Weasels are really good, let me tell you.

yeah, sounds fairly typical and a good assessment of the average results during a session. I haven’t seen a player use Checks during the GM turn ever in past. I’ve never done it as a player. Now, all I’d say off this is that 4-6 checks across the patrol of 6 would feel low ('cause everyone gets a freebie). But, if you are giving 2-3 obstacles and maybe 2-3 twists or a conflict, that’s still appropriate for the team of 6 to come away with maybe 7-11 checks (which is only 1-2 checks for each player). If the players are getting engaged and earning 3 checks consistently, that’s great! If they’re coming into the PT with 4-6 checks in each session, I’d back off the GM turn events which roll dice to challenge that accumulation of checks–if it’s consistent from session-to-session.

Right, the way I see it is if a Patrol of 3 mice might expect 4-6 checks (with 2-4 of them focused on Mission/Goal/Conditions), that still leaves them 2-4 checks to play about freely. In a 3 player game, that means everyone gets one thing “that they want”.

I was trying to emulate the target of 2-4 checks freely (expect 7-9 checks with ~5 to be used on Mission/Goals/Conditions). But that also means only half the players get one thing “that they want”. If a player happens to miss that half twice in a row, it can feel like a downer or that i’m intentionally excluding them. Do you think this is a problem the players need to fix (eg, hinder themselves more often)? Or should I try to minimize the “chaos” of the beginning of the Player Turn? Even if I minimize chaos, it’s pretty hard to accomplish all 6 Player Goals and the Mission and Recover from Conditions with only 2-4 checks.

Just to say, I’m not sure how you’re getting 20 dice in the patrol tests–particularly when you limit the Helpers. I had a table group of 6 and they could gather about 12 dice max in tests. That was sorta rare to get the 12 dice; I’d guess the more frequent was about 8 dice on a test when the whole patrol was set on it. On the other points, I agree you’re improvising some good choices. A few extra twists–not loads–drives some added challenge. I’d use a 3rd hazard very rarely; I think the twists, conflicts & compromises, and twists upon twists will go farther to driving the patrol away from completing the mission as they deal with more loose ends and unexpected issues. Well, I guess all the hazards are unexpected too, but that’s a mission design choice. Sometimes I have hazards that are natural elements of the mission and sometimes unrelated challenges that no one guessed would happen.

I was being hyperbolic, though it’s good you provided the sanity check in case I was misplaying rules. I think the highest we’ve tossed in one go is ~12 like you said, and that required taxing nature + gear + trait + help. And even all of that, on average, only breaks even with a “Fat Bastard” Obstacle 6. So maybe i’m imagining problems and trying to fix them before they are really an issue.

I’ll stop using the 3rd hazard and try to introduce more “twist-of-twists” or setting up one of the “easy” hazards as a two-part-test: maybe with one part being a rarer Skill.

Whoa, tell them a hard No on that. Each patrol member should have one or more Enemies. I tend to push more Enemies on the players over time. I feel it is the responsibility of the players to find and secure more Friends beyond the first one.

Okay, i’ll pass it out as a “homework assignment” after next Session.

Keep up the variety and offer to get players in tip-top shape from Friends, Enemies, Parents, etc. Using those relationships to offer food, drink, shelter, rest, safety, etc can go a long way toward settling scales when the Conditions are heavy and allow for more Twists

That sounds reasonable. At the end of the last session I did pretty much just that and it seemed to cheer people up. Thanks again!

7

Using the If - Then pattern or When - Then pattern is a good template and having a Trigger - Action model of specifying the details helps. I mention having fellow players trigger an Instinct; because it engages other players in collaboration. It also leads to simpler expressions to permit for simpler trigger situations; that helps GM and player to bring that into the gameplay with less pressure. Also, having a fellow player trigger the instinct to make stuff by cursing about a broken gear item is a fantastic collaboration for the players to use.

… Regarding, the belief, i made the initial point of tweaking to slightly to be either “Every problem has a solution if I stick with it long enough!” (making it more egotistical or narcissistic), or “Every problem has a solution if the Guard sticks with it long enough!” (making it more Lawful Good and idealistic) That doesn’t fix the scoping issue you mentioned, …

The scale is a key area to get clarified. If the Belief is written more like, “The Guard must solve problems,” then the player can play against by turning away from problems of individual mice while still playing toward when facing town problems or problems of big crowds of mice. If the Belief is written more like, “I’ve got what it takes to solve problems,” then the player can play against by avoiding big town problems, little individual problems, or personal problems while still using any of those to play toward the Belief; it’s a bit more ambiguous.

…
If a player happens to miss that half twice in a row, it can feel like a downer or that i’m intentionally excluding them. Do you think this is a problem the players need to fix (eg, hinder themselves more often)? Or should I try to minimize the “chaos” of the beginning of the Player Turn? Even if I minimize chaos, it’s pretty hard to accomplish all 6 Player Goals and the Mission and Recover from Conditions with only 2-4 checks.

Tough to say, but I’d place that on the player’s role by asking, "What do you want to get accomplished most? You can spend more effort to succeed during the GM Turn, or tolerate trouble in the GM Turn to get more things fixed in the Player Turn. Still, I’ll often suggest using Ttraits as a detriment to remind players that they’ve got a chance to do something with those mechanics. It can help to suggest a benefit Trait and a detriment Trait so they don’t actually lose dice–it balances.

8

Hey All,

Happy New Year!

It’s been longer than i planned on posting. Since September of last year we’ve run a few missions, including our Winter Session.

Changes of Playstyle:
No longer limit helpers to 2 with GM Tyranny. Instead i tend to use more rare tests, require unusual combinations of helper skills, or separate the Patrol entirely. I may still occasionally limit helpers to 2 or 3 for things like Nature rolls
Use more complex Hazards in place of 3 Obstacles per GM Turn, plus use Conflicts slightly more often. Still some improvement there to be made.
Tend to be much more heavy-handed with respect to Conditions. I typically hand out Conditions en-masse to helpers, while leaving the leader safe. This tends to bring out good roleplaying because i can make everyone Angry but have the person who actually did the roll look around sheepishly.
We are in a partial GM rotation. One person runs a session, then i run the next. This certainly reduces my GM workload and allows others to tell some stories and allows me to test my own roleplaying and take notes of what the rest of the players like doing.

We have played a total of 5 sessions since my last post:

Two of them (Fall 1151) were an intrigue-heavy quest that split the patrol into thirds in Barkstone (basically as a prequel to the Black Axe events in Fall 1152). That went over pretty well, although i did partially flop some of the baddies’ motivations in the second half. Everyone seemed to enjoy the change of pace. A particular highlight was when someone wanted to sandbag a failed Orator test to level it up, but rolled perfect successes - resulting in the Patrol accidentally creating a Private Defense Force for the Glaziers.

Then we had the Winter Session. One of our Patrol members got promoted, but our Tenderpaw did not. The “Unfinished Business” didn’t quite work out as well as i had hoped - i had asked everyone to make sure that they did something to trigger a Belief or Instinct with their unlimited checks but there didn’t seem to be much actual prep :frowning:

First Fall Session of 1152, one of the Players ran it and it was a variant of Deliver the Mail with an altered hazard of saving a silk wagon that was about to be flooded away - and bargaining with some turtles for help. An interesting conflict happened there between two players, one who was fine bribing the turtles with a carrier-beetle and one who really, really didn’t want it to happen.

Second Fall Session, i ran and it was about pursuing and chasing one of the Patrol’s Friend’s Quail who escaped the barn (along with all the other quails). The character had already been introduced in the Winter Session and the players had a slight bond with Marjorie the quail. Hazards include a conflict with a Snake as well as dealing with a merchant who had shot the Quail Stampede in self-defense.

Our most recent session was ran by another Player and was a Murder Mystery by the Scent Borders. It really didn’t follow the traditional GM/Player Turn style (it was more of a “choose your own adventure” style), but we found out that one of the retired Guardsmouse who Gwendolyn relied on for Scent Border reports has been long dead and his letters have been all forgeries!

My current plan is to follow-up with an altered version of the “Danger on the Scent Borders” to account for the recent developments.

Unfortunately i haven’t been as heavy-handed as i should have been with the Patrols’ Beliefs and Instincts. Mostly because i was like “oh wait until Winter Session”, “oh wait until after Winter Session”, “oh shoot i keep forgetting…

Anyway, here’s a few of the new ones:

Mouse 1

Belief: Every cloud has a silver lining–there’s always good to be found in any bad.
Instinct: Always use my unique skills and knowledge to help my patrolmates.

Mouse 2:

Belief: Diplomacy trumps aggression for results.
Instinct: If some mouse is in trouble, I drop everything to help.

Mouse 3

Belief: Taking risks is the best way for the Guard to expand the Territories and ensure our future survival
Instinct: Always speak authoritatively once a plan of action has been established