BIGs help

Mouse Guard It's What We Fight For
1

Now that I registered to the forums I’ll try to make all use from it.

So I’m starting a campaing of 2-4 sessions depending on how players interest change. I prefer playing and game mastering pre-made characters so i made ones for this campaign also.
I will plan the mission properly after i’m sure about BIGs but so far I have planned that players are relatives whose family’s house is burned by another family in the town.
I am going to play the game with 3-5 player who can choose the mouse they want to play.

Beowulf Tammilehto (Tammilehto means Oakgrove in our language):
B: The only legacy we can give to our litter is the image of our family.
I: Don’t afraid to pick a fight.
G: Revenge is fulfilled after the blood of the Herward is shed.

Edgargo Tammilehto:
B: To survive the unfair world one must be inventive and realistic.
I: Push your glasses up and say something clever.
G: We must retake our place in this town.

Edwina Tammilehto:
B: Safety of the family is the most paramount value.
I: Draw your sword when threat arises.
G: Justice must be laid but the family of the Tammilehto have to survive. (Motivating this mouse is difficult. The first part of the Goal feels forced.)

Adair Tammilehto:
B: All mice should be kind and righteous to each other.
I: Help ones in need.
G: No arrow hits an innocent mouse.

Leofric Tammilehto:
B: Being small just means you have to be braver.
I: Always accept the first plan suggested
G: Do something awesome your relatives wont forget!

So point here is trying to make BIGs so that players wont have difficulties to make up motivation to accomplish the mission. They can always debate how to do it but mice want to do something about issue.
Other thing that I am trying to do is to have counter sides of each character. Some mice want to kill the responsible burner and some might try to incriminate the othe family (this isn’t mabye strong enough)

If you could point out which BIGs are not good and why and am i trying to control the game too much?

2

B: This may not fit alongside the goal of revenge–which might be excellent contradiction of attitude versus action. Seems humble, as though to say, nothing material can be passed along. I would restate: ‘The honor of my conduct is the only legacy that will carry on.’ This can be more readily challenged in the question, “Is revenge over material goods truly honorable?” It also focuses on personal conduct, not on the whole family.
I: Can’t see a trigger. Appears timing of “pick a fight” could be, “I’ll bring that up later.” I would restate: ‘I will never cower from a fight.’ OR ‘I will always fight if provoked.’ Maybe not safe, but has a clear trigger and immediate action. Another restate, “I will never be hesitant from fear.” This allows the player to chose wisdom, safety, or other factors as a reason to hesitate, but still triggers on fear.
G: Sounds like a Goalief (mix of Goal and Belief: also called Wish or Pipedream). I would restate: ‘I must see the blood of Herward is shed else revenge is unfulfilled.’ Target=blood of Herward; Action=I must see it shed; Condition=to fulfill revenge. This might not require he do the bloodshed, but must at least see it shed (even if by another).

Edgargo Tammilehto:
B: To survive the unfair world one must be inventive and realistic.
I: Push your glasses up and say something clever.
G: We must retake our place in this town.

B: Good, yet small refinements will enhance. I would restate: “My/Our survival in this unfair world is determined by my realistic perspective and my inventive mind.” One facet I love about this is the challenge may include the question, “Can optimistic mice also survive–or only realistic mice?” Also, focus on personal traits of realism and invention rather than generic traits of realism and invention. The belief guards against his/her own failures, not everyone elses’.
I: Fair, yet needs trigger. I would restate: “When insulted, push your glasses up and say something clever.” OR “If stumped for solutions, push up your glasses and say something clever.” Will work well if it is a quiet mantra Edgargo whispers as encouragement or comfort when things go wrong.
G: Great; enhance with condition of urgency. I would restate: “I will reestablish our family’s status and dignity in this town before the Winter winds freeze us all.” Target=our family’s status and dignity; Action=I will reestablish; Condition=before Winter winds. This ought to require the whole family listen to his realistic and inventive ideas with perfect obedience.

Edwina Tammilehto:
B: Safety of the family is the most paramount value.
I: Draw your sword when threat arises.
G: Justice must be laid but the family of the Tammilehto have to survive. (Motivating this mouse is difficult. The first part of the Goal feels forced.)

B: Great, and can be enhanced. I would restate: “I value the safety of my/our family above all else.” This drives it into a personal motivation and can act as an excuse for all sorts of interfering with the actions of the family members.
I: Great. Possibly restate: “I always draw my sword when a threat arises.”
G: Odd, and maybe easy to fix. Maybe bringing about justice will not threaten survival of the family. I would restate: “I will secure my/our family’s survival before I will call for justice.” This places her at odds with Beowulf, yet contributes to Edgargo’s belief and supports his goal. Original feels very Big Sister; I hope my restate fits that spirit also. Target=our family’s survival; Action=I will secure it; Condition=before I call for justice. This also complicates the goal; if the first obstacle relates to justice/revenge, Edwina must block the plans in favor of survival in order to work toward goal; then, if second obstacle works toward survival, Edwina must redirect toward justice to complete goal (well, or she must pursue justice during Player Turn as long as survival is assured.) It is a rather complex goal and double edged. Perhaps that is why it felt forced initially.

Adair Tammilehto:
B: All mice should be kind and righteous to each other.
I: Help ones in need.
G: No arrow hits an innocent mouse.

B: Feel good; needs grit. I would restate: “It is wrong for mice to mistreat each other; my example of kindness will uplift others.” This means Adair sees the world as basically unkind and needs his example to get things right; not much grit, but just a tiny bit. Also, quickly challenged by the question, “Can decisive punishment snuff out mistreatment and other wrongs?” Also, functions to illustrate contrast between Beowulf’s contradiction of belief and goal.
I: Great, and can be refined. I would restate: “I help others when I see their needs.” Absolutely ought to cause some cringing when Herward is in need of healing, saving, forgiving, etc. If this instinct does not cause friction between Adair and Beowulf, I would wonder about how close to the bone players are really playing.
G: Ummmm, too dissonant with belief and instinct; needs a change. I would restate: “I must bring healing to the hearts of my/our family to prevent a blood feud.” A difficult goal and focuses on the patrol/family. Target=our family’s hearts; Action=I must bring healing; Condition=to prevent a blood feud. Might be most difficult goal of the bunch and relies on internal Persuader tests.

Leofric Tammilehto:
B: Being small just means you have to be braver.
I: Always accept the first plan suggested
G: Do something awesome your relatives wont forget!

B: Great, and can be refined. I would restate: “All mice are small, but I will show greater bravery despite my size.” OR “Mice must show greater bravery despite being small.” This seems to be well within the revenge idea of Beowulf, and a player may feel encouraged to take violence too far in the name of bravery. Not bad, but player take caution.
I: Strange, and I might refine. I would restate: “I will always embrace the first plan suggested.” I use embrace instead of accept; because, in embracing Leofric makes the plan his own and can more readily improve upon it. In accepting, Leofric blindly grabs hold like a drowning victim. Those might be just my feel for the words. It can help Adair or Edwina greatly if Leofric hears them speak up first, doesn’t argue, embraces their plan and helps them carry out the suggestion. Player take caution; Beowulf or Adgargo may grab Leofric’s attention and help giving little time to react.
G: Good, and might be refined. I would restate: “I must take action which my relatives/family will not soon forget.” Target=family’s attention; Action=I must take action; Condition=they can’t forget quickly. The final judgement of accomplishing the goal might rely on Conditions. If I may, for example, the player could say, “I’ll take action, I’ll attempt such and such. My intent is that everyone become (one of) Hungry/Tired/Angry/Injured/Sick due to my rash decision and bold action; they won’t forget that soon! It will be on the character sheet!” Then, the judgement of whether it was soon forgotten can be whether family members were able to easily recover from said Condition; if they recover, maybe they forget Leofric caused the trouble.

So point here is trying to make BIGs so that players wont have difficulties to make up motivation to accomplish the mission. They can always debate how to do it but mice want to do something about issue.
Other thing that I am trying to do is to have counter sides of each character. Some mice want to kill the responsible burner and some might try to incriminate the othe family (this isn’t mabye strong enough)

If you could point out which BIGs are not good and why and am i trying to control the game too much?
I wouldn’t worry too much about control; it is a campaign opener, right? The pre-mades rely on the mission intended, so giving suggested BIGs is probably a good idea. However, also be prepared for the players to revise or utterly change the BIGs. Just don’t allow them to do those revisions or alterations until you present the whole intro and assign the mission. Once they get a picture of what lies before their mice, then they can think of whether the BIGs are most fitting. Oh, and make them state the BIGs aloud before starting the GM Turn.

Now, I’m curious about the mission. When will you post that to the missions forum?

3

Hi Kenneth,

Those triggers really gived something to my instincts. I tried to do them so players could use them in various events (Push your glasses up and say something clever e.g.) and now i changed them to concerning smaller amount of events (If solutions are required, push up your glasses and say something clever.). I think this is good because still every character have chances to use their intincts but those are more clearer. My players have had some problems remembering to use their traits but now it can be easier.

I changed majority of my goals also. That Target-Action-Condition sound like a good technique and I translated it for later use. I think I’ll judge Leofric’s success in his goal by asking the other players if their characters remember the acts he has done because i dont want see him trying to hurt ohers :D. And special thanks about Edwina’s goal. It really looks good now.

With Beliefs I sticked to first ones so far apart from Adair, to which i added the grit you suggested. I didn’t want to add words like “my” or “i” to the belief. This is because i think if a mouse thinks that mice must be inventive and realistic to survive, then the sentence should concern all living mice. In Leofric’s belief there was an misunderstanding because the lack of context. Leofric is the lastborn of the family so his belief means that a smaller mouse compared with other mice can be braver.

My friends have always been content with my pre-made characters so i hope i don’t have to even deny them changing the BIGs. I can add the mission to the forum also. I have never followed the guidelines of a mouse guard session in the way it is in the book so first i was not sure should i publish it here.

Anyway thankyou for your precious help. I am the only who knows the rules of mouse guard in my “hoods” so discussing about the game is really valuable and exciting to me.

4

These BIGs look fine, and should be completely playable, with the exception of Edwina’s goal. That reads like a Belief.

5

I changed it to “I will secure our family’s survival before I will call for justice”. Is it any better?

6

I understand that you’re ok with allowing your players to change their mouse’s BIGs, including the Goal, but I’m not sure why you would set a Goal for them at all. Goals are generally set by the player, even in a one-shot or intro game.

If anything, I would recommend leaving the Goals blank on the character sheets, and perhaps have a list of suggested goals which you can provide to your players if they have problems coming up with their own.

When it comes to giving Goals to your players, I believe probably so. Allowing each player to decide what they want to accomplish during the session (on their own, or with the least amount of bias as possible from the GM) during a session is the first decision that a player makes in a session of Mouse Guard. And MG is a game about the decisions that the players make, and the consequences of those decisions. Setting Goals for them based on the Mission you’re providing is not much different than suggesting their characters’ actions in a Conflict, based on how well they will (or won’t) work vs. your chosen GM actions.

7

I have tought that if I am willing to do this, players might set goals that differ too much from each other. Like Edwina’s player could set her goal to “Leave the sity as soon as possible and find a new home”, because she wants to keep the family safe. I have hosted one game where players had to break up and go their own ways because too powerful and different goals.

In other hand, if I let players to decide their own goals, it would force them to think about their character more and find goals from there. So it would be a good thing. Though i would throw them the first scene first (when their home burns and they have to get out of there or/and save their NPC relatives) and after that give them time to think what their character would like to accomplish durning the session.

In normal Mouse Guard games there is a NPC leader, Gwendolyn for instance, who gives the mission and forces mice to do it. But in this game players have to find the motivation from their characters. If they dont find a path that everyone of them is more or less OK to take, there will be players who dont see the point in this mission for their characters. The mission is ment to be detective/assassination mission.

Should I take some kind of middle course? Like just ordering players to make up belives till I am content with them. Or just advising them really carefully before making goals

8

I believe that my advice still stands. You don’t need Gwendolyn or any other NPC mouse to “give your mice a mission”. You simply describe enough of the situation at the beginning of the session so that the players should have a feeling as to what needs to be done. In this case, it seems that NPCs actually have given your mice their mission, it’s just not obvious which NPCs those are. It sounds like the short version of the mission is “Discover who burned down our home and then do something about it.” As long as the players are choosing goals that fit that situation, the game should work out fine.

Regarding Goals that split up the party: I’ve played in and run several games of Mouse Guard where the party splits up, especially if there’s investigation to be done within a fairly small area (such as within a town and/or its immediate surrounding area). Every scene within the game does not need to include the entire party. The key thing with splitting the party is just making sure that you can get them all back together at some point, so that they can confront the final bad guy as a team. Not because it’s necessary, but because it’s more fun that way. Mouse Guard really is a teamwork game; a single helping die can make the difference between a win and a loss in some cases.

Suggestion: If this were my game, I would structure the GM’s Turn such that you provide several potential suspects for your mice to investigate, and then by the end of the Turn, the player mice should have a good idea who the culprit is. That’s it for the GM’s Turn. Then, move on to the Players’ Turn so that the players need to spend their checks to take action against the suspect mouse. You will need to take care, however, to make sure that the players understand how and why they should be trying to earn checks during the GM’s Turn. If they do not have enough checks accumulated to deal with their suspect by the end of the Players’ Turn, then the guilty mouse or mice should get away and have to be dealt with later. This can lead to another GM’s Turn, Players’ Turn, and the GM’s Turn should consist of obstacles of your own devising (perhaps tracking down the guilty party to another town or something, with all of the associated dangers of travel in the Mouse Territories), allowing the players to once again attempt to earn enough checks to directly deal with the bad guy mice.

I really like your starting concept. I just think that you should allow your players to come up with their own Goals, and just try to guide (not order) them towards choosing Goals that are related to the described situation/mission if they have problems coming up with these Goals on their own.

9

I really have to agree with this outlook. Because this is a campaign opener and the pre-built mice are going to be used in a specific mission, I think it makes sense to write all the BIGs at once.

Sure, the players may decide to stray, but at least the GM is honest about what the objective is. Another factor here relates to goals which can be achieved. Majis’ example of Edwina’s goal is a good indicator; he doesn’t want to make up a new town for them to seek. He intends the group to deal with their situation–not run from it.

In the rules text, there are several sample missions with pre-made characters. In the supplement, there are additional sample missions with pre-builts. Luke wrote the BIGs of all those sample mice including the goal related to that sample mission. I feel this is a good example to GMs looking to introduce players: write the mission notes, build some mice, write the BIGs.

Even so, I mentioned my middle ground opinion–be prepared for the players to alter the BIGs. It is totally okay to hear their take on the BIGs, but I ensure they know an introduction to the session, the mission assignment, and are allowed to ask clarifying questions. I use that intro and assignment to foreshadow events upcoming in the session. If they come to the table and want to change BIGs after only reading them, my first reaction is to ask if they want a different mouse.

10

I wouldn’t write the character goals. By definition goals must be something the character wants to achieve during the mission, not random desires. That’s why they aren’t set until after the mission is presented. If a player put forward a goal that detracted from the game, I’d just suggest they rewrite it to fit the mission that’s presented, rather than giving them goals of my own. It’s worked fine every time I’ve run MG at a con.

11

I think I’ll leave the goals section blank and ask the players what they want. One players so far have said that she wants a premade character because she is playing the first time, but then if she doesn’t want to make a new goal i’ll give him the one i have already done for that character. Thanks for your replies