Jesse, not long after the book was released, [-Planning-and-Play-Summer-1153"]I did a breakdown of a session](http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?7406-[MG) that I think might give you some examples.
Brian, I know you said players could still earn checks in the normal fashion, but by making yourself the arbiter of whether or not the characters’ Traits hinder them on tests, you’re negatively impacting the pro-activity you want to see from your players. It goes back to Luke’s point from early in the discussion—you’re rewarding turtling with the hope that it will lead to your players taking initiative, but this is a fallacy. You’re reinforcing the behavior from which you want your players to abstain.
No I’m not and there is not a single statement in your post that is correct.
I cannot negatively impact something that is currently lacking. The problem here is you are talking theory and have no clue as to the personalities and behavior of my players.
I am not deciding when a players traits hinder them, I am just applying a negative modifier to a roll, representing some unforeseen problem or random bit of bad luck. I am not a nice GM and those penalties will crop up just when the players really wish they wouldn’t.
Given the choice any reasonable person would chose their own penalties rather than have them assigned by me, but there are pressing things which the players really want to accomplish on their turn but often lack the “checks”. Letting them get actions on credit is not a gift, they are paying a hefty penalty to do so.
What I don’t want to see is the pointless treadmill of getting conditions to get checks so they can recover from those conditions. That is the opposite of fun. I prefer to have my players pushing their agenda on their turn, not simply digging themselves out of the hole from mine. I do want to use conditions occasionally to reinforce the pain of sacrifice and make failure real, not just as some busy-work that I can throw twists and such on to clutter up the players turn.
I don’t have a problem with my players RPing their characters strengths and flaws; my group is one of the most phenomenal bunch of role players I have ever encountered. What I do want is to gently encourage is for them to interact with the system in a positive, and more rewarding way.
I do get the impulse to give your players little floaties and to gently ease them into the pool. I’m all for house ruling things to fit the group. But I think you’re mistaken when you view this as a simple rule change.
There are a few core systems in Mouse Guard that make it function as Mouse Guard, and the rules regarding Checks in the GM and Players Turns is one vital core component. So, at least I feel you should acknowledge that you’ve made a major change to the game and not just a trivial rules hack. The lack of that acknowledgement is at the heart of some of the responses you’re getting, I think. We hack MG and Luke’s other games all the time on the Forums, but generally don’t refer to major pieces of the system as busy work and pointless treadmills.
That “pointless treadmill” is what’s called a feedback loop. Many, many games use positive and negative feedback loops in their design to increase the likelihood, or decrease the likelihood of certain behaviors. I would say most, if not all, have some kind of feedback mechanism at work. Some games have those feedback loops by accident and you’ll see mismatch between what players do in play and what you feel in your heart would yield a better experience. Mouse Guard’s positive and negative feedback loops are there for a reason. They really aren’t accidents and they aren’t pointless.
Your players may be great at RPing their flaws when it’s convenient, but obviously they haven’t been bringing those flaws into the game during Tests, when it really has a mechanical impact on the resolution. If they were, then they’d have tons of checks and you wouldn’t have implemented the changes you have made.
Wanderer is completely accurate in his post. I know we’re all special snowflakes, but shouldn’t the fact that so many folks who have more experience running and playing this thing are not in agreement with you suggest that the rules may deserve a second look before they are tossed out as pointless? Problems during play can often arrise from approaching a new experience through the lense of long held habits. Perhaps changing the game to suit those habits is not the right Rx for the situation. I can assure you that the games I have played and the APs I have read don’t include a lot of pointless treadmilling.
It really isn’t a major change, it’s a very slight addition to how checks can be acquired. If it the addition was really destroying a core system one would think it would have had an extremely negative impact on our game…which it has not.
I know what a feedback loop is, some work, some don’t. For our group the one of getting conditons while earning checks that will be used to recover from conditions isn’t working, and has proven to be rather counter productive to fun.
No, he really wasn’t right, if he were I wouldn’t have pointed out his error.
We have been playing for a good bit, we have given the rules a second (and often third) look and I feel confident in my assessment. And “so many folk”, really are about four, maybe five, individuals whose general receptiveness and attitude don’t leave me inclined to take much of what they say seriously. Perhaps you should try my suggestions out in your games, as I have tried the rules as written in mine, before being so quick to question my conclusions.
And yes, every group is a special snowflake, no one game will work for every group, all will need adjusting. The imperfect nature of any game almost necessitates on the spot tweaks and revisions. I am having a blast, my players are having a blast; having fun is after all the purpose of the endeavor and if we are using it as a measure of sucess we are performing admirably.
Like Wanderer you are making baseless assumptions, grounded in vague theory and your personal experience, not objective facts. My group doesn’t function like yours, and yours doesn’t function like the next guys. You have no way of knowing when and how my players are RPing their flaws (and I am telling you it isn’t always when it is "convenient) so I really cannot say your statements and conclusions are any less wrong than his.
Okay, this thread seems to have drifted well off topic. We’re not really discussing the mechanics of the hack or the application of it.
If you want to continue any part of this discussion, please start a new thread.
-L