firstly, the first option is the best go-to choice and you should typically be running that scenario in conflicts if, in fact, all four are aligned with the side. There will be some conflicts that one or more patrol mates choose to stand aside from participation. In fact, that’s one of the more memorable journey conflicts I ran–that is, when a player chose to not participate in the conflict team. He still had to go along narratively, but he chose not to join the Dispo and didn’t offer Helper during the actions. It was a struggle for him to stand back, but it was true to his mouse.
So, it seems like a large team, but it works. If the team plays hard on Attack and Feint, the opposing side might end up reduced to zero in the first volley; that’s just the risk of conflicts. But that’s also rare in my experience.
Second, having multiple teams depends on using 1e or 2e rules. I highly favor the 2e rules, and I’ll only briefly chat about the 1e rules before giving a good overview and example of the 2e rules.
So, 1e rules were a little confusing and led to gigantic forum threads trying to sort through the model of multiple teams. The summary is that 1e multiple teams was a challenging mechanic that typically resulted in Player Side teams heavily smashing opposing GM Side team(s) then having to sort through some kinda of multi-faceted compromise.
And, as you’ve noted pg 116, I can see you are using 2e rules. These are much easier to handle, and a good rendition of multi-team conflicts. When I wrote the kneejerk review of 2e, I included an off-the-cuff example of multi-team conflicts which I’ll recopy here before creating another off-the-cuff example of a multi-team conflict.
- The idea of multiple teams based on the number of mice is removed.
This will be helpful, but may create questions. I’d say the best advice here is to encourage and enable players to sit-out when the conflict isn’t really in the best interest of their PC mouse, but instead, allow a more manageable team size be formed (if there is a large patrol). I’ve found only one table group had a large enough patrol to consider multiple teams, and that wasn’t a best case example of a conflict.
- The idea of multiple teams is presented with guidance about the scope or scale of the conflict scene. I won’t recopy rules text, but here is the summary: if the case is large or distant, GM could run two concurrent conflicts against multiple teams (probably 2) by switching back and forth between.
This means the multiple teams don’t Help each other. It means they have their own Conflict Goal. It means they have their own Compromise. It shares spotlight time back-n-forth. It discourages a large fight becoming a rout by way of multiple teams attacking a single GM team. It instructs the scope and scale of the conflict.
Here’s an off-the-cuff example:
Journey Conflict
GM Side: Winter Wilderness
Player Side: Kenzie & Sadie; Leiam & Celanawe
K & S have been dropped into the ruinous catacombs of Darkheather and must contend with the strange environment to return to Lockhaven (as a team). L & C are moving overland through Winter conditions to reach Lockhaven. Saxon sits out of the conflict favoring a Pathfinder Vs Wilderness (Darkheather) test after all is said and done.
Team K & S: goal to reach Lockhaven, Dispo, face fear, darkness, chill
Team L & C: goal to return medicine to Lockhaven, Dispo, face freezing, tracked by owl
Compromise K & S: we’ve found a breach in the cistern wall after following an underground river
Compromise L & C: the medicine bottles burst in freezing conditions; must face Fight Animal conflict against the Owl; Leiam is designated as the Black Axe by Celanawe
So, that’s just an example of how that one overall Wilderness Obstacle might be described as a multiple team conflict; because, the teams are distant from each other and must face the Wilderness conditions independent of one another. Neither would be able to Help across the distance between teams. Also, they shared the spotlight, held independent goals, accomplished independent compromises, and this allowed Saxon to sit-out from a team.
Here’s another off-the-cuff example loosely inspired by a table session from years ago (also translated into 2e):
Chase Conflict
GM Side: Fox; lost science-mice
Player Side: Team Fox-Fighters; Team Mice-Finders
Fox-Fighters have tracked a fox north of Rustleaf where science-mice have been living in wilderness to study the region; they need to chase the fox away from Rustleaf and beyond the scent border. Mice-Finders can’t imagine harassing the fox while there may be lost science-mice routed from their burrow by the beast and wandering the wilderness near the scent border.
Team Fox-Fighters: goal to chase fox beyond scent border, Dispo, face cunning fox, swampy terrain, missing scent border picket
Team Mice-Finders: goal to track lost science-mice before any are eaten by fox, Dispo, face cunning fox, swampy terrain, mysterious clues in science burrow
Compromise Fox-Fighters: we’ve driven the fox beyond the border and it will not double back to return
Compromise Mice-Finders: we’ve lost track of the science-mice and must stay in the wilderness searching; the swampy terrain is due to a previously unknown beaver pond
In this example, the fox-fighters handily defeated the opposing fox and won a minor compromise of exhaustion; however, fellow patrol mates failed to discover the fate of lost science-mice who must now be living wild. In addition, the minor compromise allowed them to foreshadow a follow-on conflict with the whole patrol together and provided the realization of a new beaver pond which may threaten Rustleaf or Pt Sumac in future. So, they shared the spotlight, had independent goals and compromises, and ensured a group of lost mice were alive by agreement to a follow-up conflict (in other words delayed risk of death in exchange for another risk in conflict).
In fact, here is a possible off-the-cuff example also loosely inspired by a shared-doc group (and mutated to fit 2e):
Fight Animal Conflict
GM Side: named NPC, Firebrand fox; other fox (later named)
Player Side: Hare-Rider-Hunters; Hare-Rider-Decoys
Grasslake militia have tracked two foxes, a male trying to impress a female, in the wilderness eastward and north during early autumn snows; they want a good killing hunt of the male before he makes a mate. The Hunters will ride into battle; the Decoy will distract the female elsewhere to keep the pair separate.
Hare-Rider-Hunters: goal to kill or maim Firebrand, Dispo, face cunning fox, snowy terrain, assist from Grasslake militia captain and hare mounts
Hare-Rider-Decoys: goal to distract and restrain female fox, Dispo, face cunning fox, snowy terrain, assist from Grasslake riders and hare mounts
Compromise Hunters: we’ve nearly been killed, but managed to maim Firebrand by crippling a back leg (causing Injured condition) and putting a spear into one eye (causing permanent blinding scar); he will not attract the female while unable to properly hunt or run
Compromise Decoy: we’ve kept the female away from the hunt until the last moment; we’re exhausted, but well enough; she gets to see Firebrand be struck by a spear to the eye and see his crippled leg; we’ve decided she now gets a name, Prairiefire, and replaces Firebrand as a dominant threat in the region
In this example, the Players wanted to join the hunt, and actually no decoy team played out, but I imagined what was happening in the distance. The Hunters won with a minor compromise and used it to greatly impact the circumstances of a dominant male fox who terrorized the Grasslake region year-upon-year; not only badly injured and scarred, but also unable to properly hunt or run, and unable to attract a mate, this fox would drift from dominance far into the eastern expanse being driven by other foxes and ultimately never returning to the region every again. In contrast, the Decoys team faced a moderate compromise which led to a new dominant female fox–although not pregnant–taking up residence near Grasslake and gaining a nickname. Fortunately, she was more of a ground squirrel hunter than hunter of mice, but still threatening.
So, the multi-team model relies on those two teams acting independently–sometimes a great distance from one another, always with distinct goals and compromise results, and frequently having a complex outcome. It isn’t wrong for a group of four patrol mice to form distinctly separate teams, but don’t do it simply due to size or a desire to allow everyone to play out an action in the volley. Use the multi-team model rarely and only when it fully serves the purpose of the session.