I’ve been pondering this exact circumstance (including the same example!) for some time now. Thanks for asking, Crookedleg, and for the replies, wanderer and luke.
However, I’d like to expand on Crookedleg’s quandary. What if multiple tests are failed (Scout and Survivalist, for example)? Do I introduce a complication for each one? Can I give a complication for one (cold river Health test for failed Scout) and impose a condition for the other (roller is Hungry for failed Survivalist)? What if all three (Pathfinder, Survivalist, and Scout) tests are failed?
Am I at liberty to introduce a new complication, impose a condition, instigate a conflict, or add a weather twist as an outcome for a failed test as I see fit (or, rather, as the story allows)?
I’m glad this was clarified; it seems that making a Journey a Complex instead of a Simple obstacle will add much needed depth to the mission and story I’m writing (my original seemed lackluster, like it would be a short session without much excitement).
Sadly, I have yet to play. Actually, I haven’t done any gaming at all this summer (and I’m a teacher, so I’m readily available, but my group keeps coming up with lame excuses for not getting together), and I’m moving past the point of frustration into roiling anger. But I digress…
I love the RPG system as much as I do the comics (almost ;)), and it’s only a matter of time before we play!!!
Thanks for designing a rules set to create the feel of the comics instead of trying to make the comic fit into a set of rules!
We haven’t done anything yet. My brother has read the rules and we have discussed hypothetical game play (he’s very excited about playing… and he hasn’t even read the comics yet!). The other two in the group are just plain lazy (which is what is frustrating). They have the rules (for about two or so weeks now), and my brother and I are kind of waiting for them, but, for whatever reason, they just won’t take a look at the game. One of them even said he’d read the rules while I was gone on a week’s vaction, but he never did (and he’s the one who turned me on to the MG comics!!!). He’s also the one who has cancelled our session at the last minute (litterally, he called to say he wasn’t coming when I was expecting he and the other ‘player’ to show up any minute-- it’s an hour and a half drive!). Like I said, lazy.
Anyhoo, didn’t mean to rant.
When we do play (and I’m confident we will… eventually), we’ll do Recruitment, not the chars./missions provided (though the first mission will be somewhat modeled after the sample missions).
Play as soon as possible. MG has just about all the rules that the players need on the character sheet. If you have players who don’t want to read the rules, that’s ok. I lent the book out to some of my players and none of them actually read it. They learned through playing though, and by about the third session they were really getting used to the system.
Also, don’t worry about having “enough” players either. MG works with even just one player and GM. You might be able to play out more turns that way too! Be wary about doing recruitment with first time players too. I’ve fallen into doing that, and I’ve usually regretted it. Not to say that recruitment isn’t fun, it is, it’s just that that will likely take up the whole session! My girlfriend liked her second mouse a whole lot better than the first one she made before she played, so it’s nice to get some playing done before you make a cool mouse; this is very much the “game” of the role playing game.
I guess I’m kinda going off unsolicited here, I hope that’s ok.
My brother and I (see above) have noticed this and are planning a solo game. Matter of fact, he just read the comics… yesterday. W’ell probably take our time making his character over the phone so we don’t have to spend the first seeion doing so.
Our group isn’t first time players, only first time MG players (not trying to sound standoffish or snooty, just clarifying).
And there’s no way we’re starting with pre-gen chars. Never have, never will. None of us. If I said that we were playing pre-gens, they’d pass on playing (as would I). Each of us in the group would prefer to read the rules before playing (or making a char.) rather than take up the first session having them explained. It really helps cut down on confusion and misinterpretation, and it also allows Recruitment to move much faster (as the GM doesn’t have to explain every nuance in terms that each individual can comprehend).
I couldn’t disagree with you more here, jesse. To us (me and my group), flaws are what makes a character a character (or a mouse a mouse). Those ‘oversights’ in Recruitment, the “I should have picked this or put those points there instead” should be built on, not revamped. Change. Evolution. Learning from mistakes, dealing with the obstacles ahead, and persevering even though one is woefully underskilled (particularly for MG). That’s where it’s at. At least for us.
[And if she changed chars. because she didn’t like playing the brash youth, the lonley introvert, or the stalwart veteran, I apologize for the above. That does change the playing experience and should be rectified.]
I guess I’m kinda going off unsolicited here, I hope that’s ok.
I think what Jesse means is that it’s really hard to know what’s important in creating the character you imagine until you have a good understanding of how things work together in play. There’s a few things that play teaches which are difficult, but not impossible, to get just from reading the text. The fun and importance of screwing yourself with your own traits, for instance. Or, what wises are good for.
But, if your group is committed and gung ho about creating your own dudes, go for it.
I understand what you and Jesse are saying, I’m just saying that I disagree. To me (and my group), you shouldn’t need a good understanding of how things work, you should have a good idea of the character you want to play and build from there. The rest will fix itself. Yeah, the one check I put into Pottery would probably have been better spent on Survivalist (and that can happen without a good understanding of how things work together), but it also adds depth to one’s character. “Pottery? Saxon? I had no idea you enjoyed such… non-aggressive endeavors…”
Fair enough. But if the GM and the players, through reading the rules themselves, understand concepts like these, what’s the point of “test running” the game? And, if we’re all lucky, oversights like the one above will happen, and when that character uses that one skill that one time and it saves everybody’s arse, it’ll be recalled as one of the high points of gaming experience.
I’m not trying to misrepresent, though. Rest assured that although we’ve not put anything to paper nor rolled any dice, our group will create several “test run” characters and walk those characters through mock encounters to make sure that we each get a better understanding as to how the mechanics will play out. However, each of us will do this on our own so that when we do get a chance to play (which has become an issue of late), we don’t have to use an entire session for Recruitment and rules overview. Don’t get me wrong, we’ll make all our characters together, but doing so will leave us enough time to play a session.
As a matter of fact, both my brother and I made up characters, and we both finished with the same types of oversights mentioned above. “Hey, I wanted to play a bookish scholar, and I only have a 2 Archivist. How’d that happen?” Then, we go back to the drawing board until we iron things out (and understand the mechanics better). It sounds like we do the same things Jesse does (and you do, if I can infer), we just don’t use our game session time doing it.
Obviously, Wanderer, as are most of the skills. But I think you’re reading into things a bit much.
My example was just that, an example. It was not meant as a literal, unequivocal event, only as a frame of reference in an attempt to illustrate my point in terms of broad generalizations of possible confusions when learning a new system (particularly Recruitment). A further example, for instance, would be wanting to play a mouse who prefers to spend time away from towns and cities but, after Recruitment, only has Survivalist of 2. One can still be a woodsmouse with the skill that low, but it may come as a surprise to the player if he envisioned his mouse as a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ (to use game terms) Survivalist and is only ‘barely skilled’.
This can (and does, for us) create some confusion in roleplaying. A Survivalist mouse may not act as confidently, etc. when using that skillset at that low of a rating (which may not have been what the player envisioned, roleplaying wise- no pun intended), and it most definitely illustrates a lack of understanding of the intracacies of the rules (particulary in Recruitment, for this example). Thus, we revisit Recruitment to make sure that the skillset (and rating) allows for the type of roleplaying the player sought. Note that if the player wanted to play an unsure newb at a skill, low ratings would be acceptable.
Also, I’d also like to disclaim that skills do not have to be linear when attached to roleplay. Someone can lack confidence (or whatever) and still have ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ training, just as someone can, conversely, be ‘bad’ or ‘barely skilled’ at something and think that they are God’s gift to that skillset. This is just the way our group views/utilizes skills reflected in roleplay. By no means do you and yours need to play in this manner.
