Finally, A Bad Review!

Mouse Guard Lockhaven
21

Read them, thanks!

Read the adventure, as well.

Had many problems with the adventure.

Questions that arose during the initial briefing:

“How did the guard find out about a missing peddler? Carrier pigeon?”
“How long has he been missing?”
“What’s the scale on this map?”
(looking at map) “Did he go through either of those towns along the route?”
“Ivydale is all about the grain trade, with guardmice there specifically guarding merchants. It’s closer to the trail, right? Why aren’t those guardmice involved?”
“He’s a spy? Why do you suspect that? What did he do?”
“What’s his name?”

They set out from Lockhaven, and thought the first order of business would be to go to Ivydale, the town between Lockhaven and their destination (the road).

I guess I could have just told them (as suggested in the rpg.net thread and elsewhere in this thread) “No, you have to wait until after I’ve run my obstacles that are PAST where you want to go”, but I didn’t feel like throwing walls around their ability to, you know, make choices and roleplay in the setting.

22

Jason, why didn’t you make choices to answer those questions?

23

I missed the part where I was picking on someone, and where I was supposed to know whether someone had read or played the game.

Was that somewhere in the post?

Umm… because I’m not “going after” people, maybe?

24

I did in every case.

And after the third or fourth one, I began thinking “You know, if this was my first time as a GM, I’d be absolutely terrified right now.” That’s when I began to doubt it was that suitable for newcomers.

25

So are you here to post some substantive feedback about your play? Lots of folks here would be happy to give advice or offer pointers.

26

In an effort to be constructive, in the GM’s Turn, the GM is the one to set the mission and the scenes during the GM’s turn. As such, the session is meant to start “in media res” (sort of) much like it does in the comic book. An extended Mission Briefing feels a little non-MG to me. So after the Mission is set, set Goals and then the GM sets the scene at the start of the mission, which in this case is on the road.

You may read this down to be throwing walls around their ability to make choices, but it needn’t be so. Remember that Mission obstacles aren’t set until after the player established their Goals. As such, if the players indicate that the PCs path may be different from that anticipated either in the briefing or during the goals, then those obstacles need to change or be accommodated for in a manner very similar to running a normal RPG.

In any case, the pattern I described before would have been appropriate. Looking for a witness. Roll Circles. If they pass, then proceed to Wilderness Obstacle. If they fail, follow the twists or simply add a condition and proceed to Wilderness Obstacle.

Also, as a piece of advice in running MG, keep the rolls down to a minimum. I find that MG works well if you only pull dice out when you hit an obstacle. Before that point, try and narrate it out. In that case, you could simply go with starting the Mission with the PCs talking to a witness and go straight past to the Wilderness Obstacle. After all, the witness is more colour than a point of substance.

27

As a prospective Mouse Guard GM, I’m curious as to what terrified you.

28

Jason, that was not a dig so please don’t take it that way.

Based on the RPGnet thread and the thread on your blog, your group’s issue with the game was not some vague clash of play styles. The posts suggest that your problem had nothing to do with disliking how the game asked you to go about playing and everything do with not understanding how to do the things in the game that you wanted to do.

You guys had a fundamental disconnect with the text. That’s not necessarily a judgment of you. Nor is it necessarily a judgment of the text. But there was certainly a failure of communication – and thus comprehension – somewhere.

29

Jason, man, you seem like a stand-up guy, but I don’t know that it was a good decision to register here and engage in this thread, depending on what your desired outcome was.

Look, it’s cool that you don’t like the game, and it’s cool that the people here do like the game. We can all agree on that, yes? (At least, I hope the guys here can agree that it’s cool that you don’t like the game.) But the folks here at BWHQ (not just Luke and Thor, but all of us here) hang out here because we like the game. That means that any discussion of problems with play that take place here are all but guaranteed to be geared toward achieving two goals: 1) improvement of play experience, and 2) improvement of perception of Burning Wheel. In other words, it seems fairly obvious that most of the locals around here are going to try to either change your mind about never playing Mouse Guard again, or offer advice that’s intended to faciliate a better play outcome for you next time, and probably both at once. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to expect us to do, either, given that this is the Burning Wheel page. (Whether or not it’s warranted elsewhere – RPGnet, your blog, wherever – is another discussion entirely, but I’m talking about here in this thread.)

If you’re not interested in trying Mouse Guard again, ever – and that is absolutely fine and entirely your choice – I don’t see what coming here does for you. Surely I’m not going to go to the Wizards of the Coast boards and tell everyone there that I don’t like D&D4e? Well, OK, lots of folks do that, but I just don’t see what it gets them. If I did do that, what would my aim be? What would my desired outcome be? Either I’m looking for someone to tell me what I’m missing that makes the game so awesome and rad, or I’m wasting my time. I can’t help but feel the same way about the direction this thread is going.

There’s a lot of vocal people here who really dig Mouse Guard, and want everyone else to have an enjoyable play experience. So if you want to collaborate with us and get an understanding of why we love Mouse Guard, and what makes it work well for us, and why your group got hung up on it, and what the game could do better, then kickass! Let’s get to it and fire up a thread with your problems, however subjective, and we can talk about 'em, and maybe you’ll say “OK, I get where things went wrong for our group, but Mouse Guard isn’t for us” or maybe you’ll say “OHHH, gee, I wish we’d done X, Y, and Z differently, and if we ever play Mouse Guard again hopefully we can do it that way” or maybe even “So, based on what we’ve talked about, I’m going to start some threads in the Hacking Mouse Guard forum that will provide some fixes for problems our group ran into that the Rules As Written don’t address.” But if you just aren’t interested and never will be, I guess I don’t see what we’re trying to accomplish, here. As it is, we seem to be heading down a very argumentative road to nowhere.

-B

30

Good points.

I’ll admit that I was curious why my blog was suddenly getting all kinds of traffic and anonymous comments. It occurred to me to check here and see if there had been some sort of link to my post.

Imagine my surprise when I found my simple “it’s not for me” comment in my blog had been labeled “a bad review” by Luke, followed with a series of posts insulting me for daring to have had a bad experience running the game.

So I thought I’d pop in (I’d already registered long ago - MG was the game I hoped would be an improvement over BW and BE, both of which I own) and answer some questions politely to clarify some misconceptions.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind about the game - and I don’t see much point in opening up a big Q&A about how my experience could have been so much better if I’d only done X and Y, and how I definitely shouldn’t have done Z.

Like I said on my blog… I was quite excited about the game prior to the release. It was my “If I can only buy one game at Gen Con, this’ll be it.” I was one of the first few to preorder it on IPR. While waiting for the game’s release, I talked up running a campaign of it with coworkers.

I certainly hoped from Luke’s posts on rpg.net that the game would address all of the crunchiness I found present from reading BW and BE. If he’d delivered a 30-page game based on the system he described jokingly on rpg.net (the one with the Mouse Master and the finger counts), I’d have happily bought ten copies and stored eight of them for when my daughter is old enough to game.

As it happened, I was really disappointed in the play experience. Two of the players hated, it. One of them will never play it again. Not much point of trying to do a postmortem and put together a new gameplan. End of story.

I didn’t write a big “this game sucks” review, or even post on rpg.net about it. Didn’t see the point. The only reason I even posted any details at all here is to clear the air.

I’ve now written far more about a game I didn’t enjoy than I’ve written about many games I love without reservations, so I’ll stop now.

31

Wall of quotations, go!

Thanks.

I’ll admit that I was curious why my blog was suddenly getting all kinds of traffic and anonymous comments. It occurred to me to check here and see if there had been some sort of link to my post.

Imagine my surprise when I found my simple “it’s not for me” comment in my blog had been labeled “a bad review” by Luke, followed with a series of posts insulting me for daring to have had a bad experience running the game.

So I thought I’d pop in (I’d already registered long ago - MG was the game I hoped would be an improvement over BW and BE, both of which I own) and answer some questions politely to clarify some misconceptions.

Sure, sure. As I alluded to in my post, I’m not entirely sure all of the comments on your blog were warranted, so I understand where you’re coming from.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind about the game - and I don’t see much point in opening up a big Q&A about how my experience could have been so much better if I’d only done X and Y, and how I definitely shouldn’t have done Z.

Well, I think that kind of Q&A isn’t worthwhile, but I don’t think that means that your negative experience about the game can’t yield positive results for the rest of us, if you’re willing to have a go at it. I’d understand if you weren’t, though; discussing things one doesn’t like with people who very much like those things can be a little touchy, and it’s hard to have it turn out constructive when all’s said and done.

Like I said on my blog… I was quite excited about the game prior to the release. It was my “If I can only buy one game at Gen Con, this’ll be it.” I was one of the first few to preorder it on IPR. While waiting for the game’s release, I talked up running a campaign of it with coworkers.

I certainly hoped from Luke’s posts on rpg.net that the game would address all of the crunchiness I found present from reading BW and BE. If he’d delivered a 30-page game based on the system he described jokingly on rpg.net (the one with the Mouse Master and the finger counts), I’d have happily bought ten copies and stored eight of them for when my daughter is old enough to game.

As it happened, I was really disappointed in the play experience. Two of the players hated, it. One of them will never play it again. Not much point of trying to do a postmortem and put together a new gameplan. End of story.

If that is the end of story for you, then I’m sorry to hear that things didn’t go well for your group.

I didn’t write a big “this game sucks” review, or even post on rpg.net about it. Didn’t see the point. The only reason I even posted any details at all here is to clear the air.

I think the fundamental disconnect here has been that your blog entry was construed as a review.

I’ve now written far more about a game I didn’t enjoy than I’ve written about many games I love without reservations, so I’ll stop now.

Again, only stop if you’ve no desire to dissect your play experience with the eager students here in the lab. :slight_smile: I know I’m not alone when I say that I’m interested in hearing what didn’t work for you guys (and it sounds like “rules for investigations” are part of it, since Jeb’s asking about converting to GUMSHOE). However, a necessary part of such dissection is commentary like “oh, well that’s not how those rules are intended to be used in the first place,” and it can be tough for both parties to communicate in a such a way that those remarks don’t sound like rebuttals or refutations. However, if you are open to the idea, there’s no need to stop talking about the game.

-B

32

Jason, I really don’t see what was so discouraging or negative here. If anything, people wanted to hear about your experiences. It sucks you don’t want to share here with a post. I, personally, have no inclination to try to bring you “into the fold” or offer advice about how things could have gone better. I just want to hear how things went wrong and take it as a learning experience and know things to watch for when I run the game myself. Gamers helping gamers, so to speak.

I haven’t checked your blog since this morning, and I’m sorry to hear people were disparaging there, especially anonymously. That’s just shitty all around and makes BW/MG folk look like raving fanboys, which I’m sure most people here want to avoid like the plague.

Again, sorry you feel you were slighted here and thus don’t wish to give us more of your insights (which I found useful). Best of luck with your next game!

33

Jason:

your blog post may not have been intended as “This game sucks” but that is EXACTLY what it conveys. It comes across as “This is so bad I shouldn’t bother even wasting time to explain what we didn’t like.”

The advice in the book is to play the first couple sessions using the pregens for the mission in question.

By skipping straight to building characters, odds are you got characters unsuitable for the challenges presented. And that alone leads to poor performance. In short, from what little was there, the GM sabotaged the session by poor preparation, and by starting with player generated characters for the pregen missions.

I know that the pregens worked FAR better than the home brews for the adventures as written. In fact, before building PC’s, my players each played pregens. One is still playing a pregen.

The same kind of issue was had with Shadowrun 1E… a lot of people had a blast starting with the templates and later making custom characters, but many people who hadn’t played but insisted on a custom character didn’t have the right kinds of skills and stats due to a lack of grasp of the interplay in the system.

34

Thank you for your armchair quarterbacking.

Character suitability was not the problem.

The GM/player turn structure was disliked by the players. We didn’t like scripted combat. We didn’t like rock/paper/scissors combat results.

I could go on, but please don’t assume you know what happened at our table, thanks.

This is my last post on the matter, but I’m curious about one thing:

Luke, why exactly did you link my blog post in your forum? Why start a whole new thread calling it a “bad review” when it was anything but a review?

What were you hoping to accomplish by pointing out to your forum readers: “A random stranger with a low-traffic personal blog mostly frequented by his actual friends didn’t really like my game and won’t go into details about why”?

Were you hoping to somehow provoke a meaningful dialogue?

Why the link, exactly?

35

If you don’t want people making guesses and assumptions, either provide the needed data to prevent it, or don’t make vague statements in public! And a blog is essentially public.

A negative review is often the hardest to write; a short, bland, and negative review is almost a surefire way to generate a firestorm.

And, thanks to my pissing you off, we now know some of the things you didn’t like. Things that should have been in your blog post.

36

Hi Jason,

I often post links to discussions on other forums that I feel are germane to this one.

I don’t read your blog. I followed the publicly posted link on rpg.net. Why did Ausjeb post the link if not to drive traffic and create discussion about your group’s experience with the game?

I was sincerely hoping for some negative feedback. Negative feedback is way more interesting and discussion worthy than hearing “It’s great!” over and over again. Substantive negative feedback is often better for buzz than positive feedback, because it encourages people to disagree.

And often, I’ve found that when folks post “I’m not talking about something” in public on their blog, it’s an invitation to get them to talk about whatever it is their not talking about.

Now that you’ve offered some points:
So what about the GM’s Turn didn’t you like? It’s pretty traditional in set up. GM is in the driver’s seat and gets to set difficulties. Players offer suggestions and make plans. MG is just explicit about this set up, rather than the traditional implicit assumption in many other roleplaying games.

37

Hi! I’m the “anon” poster you ripped into, accusing me of being Luke being oh so secretive and jerkish!

P.S. If you are going to get so bent out of shape and accusitory about an “anon” post you probably should just turn off that option for your blog.

38

No it didn’t.

39

Duck Season!

40

None of those things required any rolls at all. Imagination that no module could provide adequately and would of made the adventure unnecessarily a hard-boiled detective story. You may like hard-boiled detective stories, but why is a game about rodent Aragorn’s got to become Cotton Comes to Harlem? They made that choice, why did they make that choice?