I am a big fan of the Mouse Guard comics and I’ve been looking to get into an RPG. For these reasons I decided to buy the lovely MG Boxed Set. I’ve been reading through the rule book trying to get my head around how to run a game. I have zero experience as a GM and I have only played one RPG system in the past, which was a system a friend of my designed himself. I have a few questions, I really want to get this right as I want my friends (pen and paper RPG virgins) to enjoy it and come back for more. I apologise if anything I asked is stated in the rule book or here on the forums already but there is so much info to digest that I might have missed/forgetten things.
How much input do players have in the GM turn? Do they only roll and use skills when I present them with an explicit obstacle or can they do things between obstacles/conflicts? Let me try to think of an example, lets say I narrate part of a journey to a town and a player expresses their desire to harvest a few supplies in case of poor weather, could I say “Sure, do a harvester 4 test” get them to RP the outcome and continue towards the planned obstacle?
At times the rules read like I just pick the characters up and drop them infront of a problem that they could defeat and narrate in about 2 minutes. But then the book also emphasises roleplaying and challenging beliefs, instincts. How can I do this if they get 2 challenges and finish?
The Grain Peddler sample mission seems like a perfect example of this. Maybe I am just missing something or expecting the missions to be more epic.
Am I right in thinking that a complex obstacle is basically a bunch of simple ones put together? How long would you forsee a simple obstacle taking when factoring in the GM narration, players tests and player narration of their actions?
In the rulebook it sometimes reads like you don’t give players options on how to overcome an obstacle. Surely this would be too restrictive and make creative roleplaying difficult. Am I just reading it wrong?
No doubt I will come up with more things to ask. None of these points are intended as digs at the systam, I just want to make sure I have it right so I can make the experiece fun.
I’ve been thinking about it. Is a complex obstacle a way of portraying a larger event? Let’s say breaking into a castle? Multiple stages of the obstacle could represent slipping passed guards, then scaling a wall, breaking into an office then searching a desk. Am I right?
Players can suggest tests, but really there shouldn’t be much empty time for that sort of thing. Let’s look at your example.
Ok, so don’t do it like that ;). Instead, I recommend saying something like “The roads to appleloft have not faired well this season. It’s an Ob4 pathfinder test to find your way there safely, and you definitely need supplies for the trip. Wilhelm, you have harvester. It’s an Ob2 harvester test to gather enough supplies. Are you hunting up some grub? What are you doing? (If he doesn’t meet the ob, he gets the goods and you apply the tired condition or something). Is anyone helping Katie with the pathfinder role? Robern, you have Cartography, are you working together to try and map out the way? Cool, pass a helping dice over to Katie…”
At times the rules read like I just pick the characters up and drop them infront of a problem that they could defeat and narrate in about 2 minutes. But then the book also emphasises roleplaying and challenging beliefs, instincts. How can I do this if they get 2 challenges and finish?
Looks can be deceiving. Let’s say Katie rolls 3 successes on the Pathfinder roll. You could say she got to Appleloft, no problem, but she’s hungry. Or you could apply a twist. “So, you’re crossing dried up creek bed on the way to appleloft, hauling yourselves over the rounded stones that have been washed into your path from last season’s floods, the brown grass at the sides of the creek towering above your heads, and you hear a rushing noise. Flash flood! A wall of water five mice high crests over the ridge. This is a full conflict. The water is going to try to catch you in the middle fo the creek bed and wash you all miles down stream. How many teams of mice and what are your goals?”
Am I right in thinking that a complex obstacle is basically a bunch of simple ones put together? How long would you forsee a simple obstacle taking when factoring in the GM narration, players tests and player narration of their actions?
That’s basically right. Simple obstacles are short if they succeed or you apply a condition, but they take all sorts of time if you bring in a Twist for them to deal with.
In the rulebook it sometimes reads like you don’t give players options on how to overcome an obstacle. Surely this would be too restrictive and make creative roleplaying difficult. Am I just reading it wrong?
Sometimes, I’ll give them a couple of choices. “There’s not much game round these parts, so it’s an Ob5 Hunter test. Or you could try to gather some food, which would be an Ob4 Harvester test.” Sometimes, players suggest other alternatives and I might accept it if it makes sense. More often than not, I go with what I have though. They also might suggest all sorts of helping moves. Someone might say “Can I use my boatcrafter to whip up a shovel for Wilhelm to use harvesting?” and I’d say “Sure. Let’s figure out the factors for that test. Wilhelm that will give you +1D advantage for that tool.” Of course, that boatcrafter roll is open to Twists and Conditions like anything else.
Also, I generally ask if they’re using a trait to help them, or if they want to bring it in to their detriment and earn a check. Then I ask them to describe how that trait either is helping or hindering their work.
No doubt I will come up with more things to ask. None of these points are intended as digs at the systam, I just want to make sure I have it right so I can make the experiece fun.
I’ll answer according to my own experiences, but please do not assume I mean to contradict any other forum member.
I let the player have quite a bit of input. I encourage them to focus on in-character thinking, speaking, and acting. If they present a scene that seems to contain drama or action, I might decide it deserves some tests or even a conflict to settle the results. If I’m not concerned with the results being given to them, I simply tell them that it happens (approximately) as they described (I can always edit a bit more or less than they).
If a player specifically requests a test or a conflict during the GMs turn, the first question on my mind is whether it directly relates to the mission at hand. If it doesn’t relate at all, I’m very likely to narrate the section myself without a test. If the dice roll, they record pass or fail on the advancement of the skill. If I narrate the scene, they do not mark a test for advancement. So, if they wish to do something wholly unrelated, I rarely will allow them to roll dice over it. I simply decide “Yes, but …” or “No, but …” and move forward.
If the test seems related to the mission (such as your example of harvesting food for a trip), I’m more likely to allow it. If I don’t feel it presents a conflict, I will simply narrate the success of the action without a dice roll. If it seems to present an interesting conflict, I’ll factor the test and allow the dice roll.
I typically select two obstacles which I know I will present during the mission. I’ve got those factored and prepped on a separate page. When that time comes, I narrate the introduction to that obstacle and listen for their suggestion of how to overcome the obstacle.
Challenging beliefs, instincts, and goals is still difficult for me. It takes practice. Also, a GM will need to take some time getting to know their players. Each session may get better or worse for challenging beliefs, instincts, and goals. Some sessions won’t challenge the beliefs or instincts of all mice. I do try to ensure that each goal gets challenged in each session.
When creating complex obstacles, I tend to cluster three skills together that combine to face an obstacle. I use complex obstacles more for weather and wilderness than for mice and animals. The three skills must be rolled according to the order I assign. The first will generally be a test for one mouse which others can help. The result is typically a +1D or +1s bonus to the next test for success, or -1D or -1s penalty to the next test for failure. The second skill is often a skill which one mouse can test but the help from others might be more difficult to imagine; sometimes this means only one helper. As for the first test, this provides a bonus or penalty to the next test. The third skill is typically a skill which I require of each mouse in the patrol such as Health against the weather or Will against a demotivating terrain obstacle. The skills preceding might have been an attempt to get the upper hand against the final test, but all mice have to face the final obstacle for themselves. Then, the resulting condition is often Sick, Injured, and/or a full twist.
When players have earned checks for the Player’s Turn, I have allowed them to spend a check to gain a complex obstacle. This is not encouraged by the game text. One check = One test for advancement. Whether that one test is from a simple test or a conflict, one test for advancement. In such a case that a player wants to initiate a complex obstacle using a check, I require them to invite other mice into the complex obstacle with them; each mouse must make a participating test such that no mouse receives more than one test for advancement in the complex obstacle. If they don’t want the involvement of other mice, they’ll need more checks or they’ll need a conflict.
You might consider the above, but decide not to allow a player to purchase a complex obstacle. That would be fine. That is the manner the game expects. I use this method for groups that tend to earn few checks during the GMs turn while I encourage them to earn more checks in the future. As they learn to earn checks, they’ve got more to use during a Player’s turn and can accomplish more without complex obstacles.
With respect to how players must overcome obstacles, I generally have generated two skills which could be used to face an obstacle. I try to think of other ways that the patrol might face an obstacle. I’ve even done a session in which the patrol could choose not to face an obstacle at all, but they rose to the challenge.
When I present the obstacle, I let them pause, consider, and begin to discuss methods to face the obstacle. Sometimes they need time to think it out. If it seems they are not coming to a resolution quickly, I will mention one of the methods I considered. Often they choose one of the methods I considered. Sometimes they present a very unique approach which looks like a good candidate. I allow the senior mouse to make a decision of what should be done, then I factor the appropriate test(s) for the group to accomplish their objective. Else, I form the teams for a conflict and set a goal for my team as well as disposition.
I always roll in front of the group. I don’t roll anything before the game during my prep time.
The group is slightly restricted in the actions during the GMs turn. That is part of the game. Also, once they have made a decision about how to press forward, and the Ob is stated, they must make the test and accept results. That is part of the “No Weasels” rule. I have at times allowed them to request helping dice after they know the Ob if there is a mouse in the patrol who did not already offer some form of help. Otherwise, I enforce that they have selected their attempt and must test the skill(s) factored.
During the Player’s Turn, they can be more creative and feel less restriction about what they must face. However, they need to earn checks to make the most of this period. Without checks, they can’t do quite as much.
Just as in the GMs turn, there are times I do not require the mice to roll a test for an action during the Player’s Turn. I’ll give an example of something I once allowed:
Player: For my check, I’d like to find a map store.
GM (me): Tell me more. what do you want with a map store?
Player: Well, for my next check, I want to buy a map.
GM (me): Okay, here’s our best way to handle this: You head into the market district of the city in search of a map store. You find a store that looks quite pleasing and stocked. Inside, you speak with the clerk about a few maps you are interested in. Using a check, you want to make a resources test to buy a map. Tell me more about the map you want to buy. How much detail? How is the quality of the map which catches your eye?
In this case, the test of whether they find a map store is simply not valuable enough to require a check. The resources test to buy a map can be factored as a simple test. If, after hearing the factoring for the resources test, the player wishes to change his test to a negotiation conflict to haggle for a better price, I’ll allow that sort of change. It is their check to use. In such a case, the result of the conflict may dictate a change in cost and a new resources test. I will often narrate the purchase of the map without the resources test in that case (remember, One check = One test for advancement). They’ve already earned a test for advancement in their conflict.
Thanks for the swift replies. I’m starting to get a feel for how things work now I think. Reading your replies and some other threads it seems the amount of input players get in the GM round is down to the GM. I get the impression that as long the proposed tests are aiding the progress of the story then it doesn’t matter too much.
Would people usually use simple obstacts as twists rather than a primary obstacle?
I’m going to finish off the rule book tonight and go over some bits. I will no doubt have more questions after that. In fact I think I had more a few minutes ago but I have forgotten them.
Actually, I tend to make simple tests the opening face for an obstacle. That is a tendency for me, but not a rule outright.
I choose to do this for a particular reason. If the team pulls together helping dice, gear dice, advantages of other types, and whatever else, they create a strong chance to succeed at a single, simple test. They pass and move forward. However, if they are starting to really get that success generally means nothing happens, they start to change the method by which the team faces the obstacle.
They start to use their tratis against themselves. Sometimes they will instigate an in-character fight to prevent another patrol mouse from wanting to help, or they will refuse the help outright. They will look for whether this obstacle has to do with their belief or goal and try to play that into the response. They might simply feel an instinct applies and drive forward based on that instinct even if it is to their detriment.
In other words, when they realize that a passed test will result in a shorter session, they sometimes work towards failure to ahve a more interesting game.
I played with a group not long ago that became so focused on success in every endeavor that the game was more than over in a short session and they didn’t get to see the interesting twists and conditions come into play.
Now, that can’t always be the case. But, it works for some groups where it won’t work for all groups.
I will also back up a simple test with the result being a determining factor of the actual obstacle. I’ll offer an example: the patrol was already told that a fox had been seen prowling around an area being harvested. The harvesters were in danger, but needed to fill their quotas. The patrol was given a Scout test against the fox’s Nature. The result of the test would have been like so–success indicates the patrol chooses the conflict which will be intiated; failure indicates the fox will decide the conflict which will be initiated. In either case, they would encounter the fox. They would suffer no twist or condition from failure except that the fox initiated a chase conflict. If they had been successful they could have chosen a fight animal or chase.
The actual obstacle was an animal obstacle of a fox prowling. The simple test only determined who was surprised at the encounter between fox and patrol.
What usually happens in play is that you present the situation (“The stream is flooding!”) and you have some expected ways the players will solve it, but they may come up with a different, but equally valid method- use the appropriate skills tests for whatever they come up with.
The nice thing about Mouse Guard is that most of the solutions to problems involve everyday objects in the woods- twigs, leaves, plants, trees, rocks - things that all you need to do is take a walk in a park to go see - so players often will have a lot of really great solutions you wouldn’t have thought of that work fine as well as whatever you were expecting.