GM Turn, Player Turn?

[Daniel_H]

There has been previous discussion on this topic and people have offered good advice in response to similar reservations.

@buzz

In addition to what’s been said, keep in mind that:

a) By sitting down to play MG, the players are, by definition, on-board with the idea of tackling the mission the GM sets before them;

b) Players are the ones who define their goals, beliefs, and instincts, not to mention traits during chargen (or template selection), and these are the prime drivers used by the GM for twists and conflicts and such;

c) The dice determine who gets what when;

d) The player’s turn forces the GM into a reactive role as the players take the reins, something that is fairly unique in RPGs.

So, yeah, the GM gets to push pretty hard during his turn. However, he can’t railroad; he can only complicate. On the Player’s turn, they get to push, and the GM has to take a back seat.

@Paul_B

I’ve been handing out my $0.02 all day – at this rate I’ll be broke at the end of the day! But my thoughts:

• Yes, the turn structure restricts roleplaying.

• All rules in an RPG restrict roleplaying. That’s what they’re there for. Probably what feels weird is that turn-based RPing isn’t something you’ve ever done before, so that particular restriction feels…more restrictive than, say, the fact that an untrained fighter can’t cast a spell, or that you can’t break initiative order and roll your attack just whenever.

Your players will have to decide if they like the impact on play the MG turn system produces. But don’t discount it out of hand just because it’s novel.

@Paka

It is a whole lot more organic than that.

Think of the GM’s Turn and the Player’s Turn as rhythms.

Let’s use some Gygaxian rhythms as examples, since you invoked His name.

The GM puts a hallway pit trip in the player’s way and they have to use their skills to navigate around it and then they have to fight the orcs.

From the book, page 70:

“The GM will point to certain tests to overcome
obstacles. The players may suggest other tests,
other ways to navigate the situation.”

After those two conflicts are resolved (and just because two rolls are what starts resolving them, that doesn’t mean all will be finished in two simple rolls), we can take it to the Player’s Turn. But, odds are, it won’t be two simple rolls. Odds are there will be some twists, making things more complicated.

Once the two conflicts the GM decided when she made the mission up are done, we cut to the Player’s Turn.

In Gygaxian terms, this could be the players sealing off the door to a secure room with iron spikes and resting up in order to heal wounds or get their spells back.

But let’s see this in Mouse Guard terms.

I ran a game and the two conflicts were a late spring snowstorm and a beaver who had built a dam that flooded Sprucetuck and it was ripping up pieces of the tree town in order to take back to its dam.

There is structure but structure doesn’t mean railroad. It doesn’t mean the players don’t have choices. You know what the two conflicts are going to be but what you don’t know is how exactly the players will solve them or who their attempts to solve them will further complicate matters.

The beginning is set (Gygaxian: there is a dungeon with treasure, get to it) but the end is undetermined and that is why there are no rails. In a railroaded adventure, the end-point is known and their choices are not meaningful.

Guardsmice have meaningful decisions to make.

Hope that helps.

If that doesn’t help, let us know and we’ll try to address your specific concerns.