Two players have a disagreement. One player wants one thing, another players wants something else. It is not so important, so resolve it with a versus test. You don’t want a player get away with it just to have better social skills. He must to make a roll.
If I want to pursue the traitors and you want to go back to Lockhaven and call for reinforcements., I think it’s a big deal. A single roll of the dice can change everything.
Where it says that?
They can’t because they are on a mission. There is no time! Your job is to keep them under pressure. But if you think they can then just describe it. Make it part or your collaborative narration. Do not let the players ask for dice rolls all the time. It’s the GM’s Turn. They don’t ask for tests. They just describe their character actions and you collaborate with them giving them good descriptions and color.
Other situations may arise as well. Resolve them with quick versus tests. Players may use their traits to help and hinder the roll, but remember that twists and conditions still apply.
So … give them Sick and Injured instead. When they cry and cry about how harsh your conditions are, shrug and tell them it was simply impossible to give them hungry/thirsty.
But I don’t see any problem about use Conditions in a Persuader versus test. I am trying to convince you to come with me. You are trying to convince me to stay in town. You lose. I leave the town and you stay, angry with me. As always, we must negotiate the outcome of the roll.
The issue is the fact that conditions are given in order to pass the test. Hence, I don’t see an use for it in PVP. I know it says other situations but it’s still under player versus player, therefore it considers versus tests.
well, i don’t think it works that way. Anyway, not the kinda of thing I have issues with my players so I’ll let it pass until I get something more official.
Something that this game does very well is simulate the world of the comics that are its basis. In the comics, patrolmates occasionally disagree with each other, and sometimes you can tell that one is angry with the other (or others) afterward. Imposing a Condition on the mouse (or mice) of the losing side of a simple Vs. argument is not only in line with the rules of the RPG, but also of the “feel” of the source material.
Re-stating Alejandro’s point above: negotiating (or at least knowing) the outcome is something that should be done for every test (not necessarily for every roll, since any Conflict in the game requires multiple rolls, all of which are basically pre-negotiated through the charts). It’s important before anyone rolls dice that everyone knows the answer to the question, “What’s at stake?” It allows you to decide how important passing a test really is to your character. It also allows the players to decide how willing they are to accept failed tests, which are important to character advancement.
But I think the most important part of all of that is that failure=Condition is in line with having game rules that mimic what happens in the Mouse Guard comics.
As for me, I could definitely see applying a condition to the losing side of a Persuader vs. Persuader rather than resolving the argument.“okay Kenzie, that retort from Saxon was so like him. He’s always criticizing your approach to problems. Take the angry condition. You guys gonna roll again?”
That’s definitely something I would not do in my game. I would state the stakes (“You win, you get your way. You fail, you reluctantly agree to go along with your opponent’s approach, and take the Angry condition.”), have the players roll, then hold them to the results of their rolls. In my games, the stakes are never “if you fail a roll, you can take a Condition and roll again”.
How does that square with the rules, namely page 125?
The GM can apply conditions to a character who fails a roll but is allowed to pass the test.
In my example, the Condition produced a tied result, not just a do over. There are rules that govern that. One of the mice could use the tiebreaker rules to gain a check, for example. My “roll again?” was just a tie breaker roll, which is also in the text.
Faill the roll and get the condition seems to be a double whammy and counter to the Condition rules.
You can fail to overcome the obstacle and the GM can inject a twist into the game, or you can succeed at your attempt, but at a cost. The GM can’t apply both options to one test (page 90).
Edit: if we were playing Burning Wheel, I’d be totally on board with your “set stakes and resolve them.”
As I understand it, a Condition is the result of failing a test (pp. 91-92). It can not turn a failure into a tie. So, I’m not really following your reasoning where you say “the Condition produced a tied result”.
The sentence you’re referencing on p. 125 is a re-stating of what’s on p. 90, Failed Tests: “Game-wise, one of two things can then happen, and the GM gets to decide which one he wants: You can fail to overcome the obstacle and the GM can inject a twist into the game, or you can succeed at your attempt, but at a cost. The GM can’t apply both options to one test.”
Conditions don’t produce results – they are a part of the results, because of failure. By the time a Condition has been applied, the test has been resolved and you should not re-test for the same thing (also p.90, “Fun Once, Let’s Not Do It Again”).
Fail the roll and get a Condition is not a double whammy since the failing players still get what they want (even though they failed the roll) but at a cost.
Basically the reason why I didn’t bother trying to solve the issue. Luke, I wasn’t dismissing help, I just didn’t think it helped me and that I was actually putting too much thought on something that in reality wasn’t gonna come up on my game. Maybe it did help someone else with the same issue, but it’s not the way I would play it. And for that I don’t think I should keep wasting a helper’s time with long diatribes about something that in the end pertained to my gaming taste.
SlashDev, I disagree. Your example is you lose the argument and you are angry. That’s a condition and not getting what you want, right?
But the rules clearly state that if you apply a condition, the player gets what they want. In this case, not “reluctantly agreeing with the other character.”
Am I confused as to your example? Let’s make sure I’m understanding the situation first.
Salsa: Please stay on with us for this. These discussions help everyone understand the game better. James might totally fix something I’m doing wrong in my game (but I doubt it ).
James: I get what you’re saying now. I think that PvP is probably better solved with Argument Conflict than a Persuader Versus, since Conflicts almost always require Compromise, and that’s where the “you reluctantly agree, which makes you Angry” results happen. But I think that these can be dealt with in a shorter form with a Persuader Vs. test as long as the players involved decide what the stakes are prior to making die rolls. I may be a harsh GM, but I would still require (probably) an Angry condition due to losing an argument such as in the example.
Or… maybe more appropriate (and in line with the rules about failing without Condition requires a Twist) would be to introduce a Twist that’s related to the team wasting their time arguing rather than getting on with the mission. That’s probably the right answer. The sad part about this approach is that Twists tend to affect the whole party. (Again, evil, harsh GM - mwuuuhahaha!).
I’ll also say that I have yet to have any PvP with the several groups I’ve played with. I’m glad to hash this out here before having to deal with it at the table.
A mouse is small. The world is big. It’s a lot of work for a small mouse to carry lots of resources around a big world. Some of the character sheets for the game actually have you draw what your characters are holding. This is not D&D, so there are no Bags of Holding. If your players think that they can carry many days’ worth of rations with them, make sure they draw it on their sheets or otherwise explain to you how this is possible… then call them on their B.S. when they show you a drawing of a tiny mouse carrying a giant bag.
If they insist on doing hunting/gathering/scavenging every time you allow them to stop and rest, let them do so, but require a test at an appropriate Ob, and make sure they roleplay their actions. If you set the Obs at an appropriate level, they will fail occasionally, and will have to deal with a Twist or Condition as a result. It may cost them a Tired or even an Injured to get food for alleviating their Hungry condition, depending on where you allow them to stop and set up camp for the night. You can think of it this way: If your players are consistently doing some specific thing to work around the rules, it makes them predictable, and predictable is easy to work with. Put their patrol in places where there are risks to making those scavenger tests.
James: I get what you’re saying now. I think that PvP is probably better solved with Argument Conflict than a Persuader Versus, since Conflicts almost always require Compromise, and that’s where the “you reluctantly agree, which makes you Angry” results happen.
So, we are in agreement here that the rules in an Argument Conflict are different from versus tests. I think we also agree that Compromise is awesome.
But I think that these can be dealt with in a shorter form with a Persuader Vs. test as long as the players involved decide what the stakes are prior to making die rolls. I may be a harsh GM, but I would still require (probably) an Angry condition due to losing an argument such as in the example.
Here’s where we start to disagree. I too would use a Persuader Vs. test for this. But, I’m seeing only two possible results for a failed test in the rules.
You fail to achieve your intent and the GM introduces a Twist, or
You achieve your intent, but at the cost of a Condition.
Versus Tests are just like normal Tests, but the other player is setting your Ob, right? And the book says, and Luke has reiterated, that normal rules for Conditions and Twists apply. Where it starts to get a little weird is that I don’t see much sense in awarding success with a Condtion to the player that failed the test, if that has the effect of robbing the player who succeeded on the test. But, I also don’t want to house rule things.
Are we together (I mean do we understand each other, not do we agree) so far?
Assuming you see where I’m coming from. Let’s look at the two results from a failed roll in this context.
You fail to achieve your intent and the GM introduces a Twist.
So, here the GM is free to turn the direction of the story or inject a complication into the lives of the patrol. Having the successful player get their “stakes” would satisfy this definition in my book. Saxon wants to rush in with swords drawn, but Kenzie wants to scout around the area first and reconoiter? Awesome, Persuader v. Persuader. If Kenzie gets more successes, and the GM rules that the patrol goes scouting instead of rushing in. That’s a Twist. There’s only two possible results of a failed test. A Twist or a Condition, and that’s not a Condition. So, I don’t think you have to come out of left field with a twist that effects the whole party. You can if it makes sense and seems fun, but you can just make a natural progression here.
But what about a Condition?
The player get’s what they want, but at the cost of a Condition.
Here there’s a problem with just administering a Condition with success. If Kenzie beats Saxon, making Saxon angry and having Kenzie and company join him in rushing in is a bit douchey, right? I mean Kenzie outrolled Saxon. Kenzie didn’t fail. But, if I wanted to make Saxon angry, I think I could apply the Angry condition in a way that doesn’t force Kenzie. I declare that Saxon takes the angry condition but neither side wins. Look at Etsu’s example above. One character stays, but is angry. The other is free to leave. That’s essentially what happens in an unbroken tie. A stalemate. But, why skip all the tiebreaker stuff. Why not turn to the players and ask them if they want to invoke a trait to break it in favor of the other player? Why not have a tiebreaker roll off? That stuff is there.
I more or less ended my ramble above with thinking that in a scenario in the GM’s Turn where two players (or two groups of players) disagreed on a course of action, and the GM actually allowed this to be resolved via a Versus test, that a Twist is more appropriate than a Condition. I also think that a full-on Argument conflict is better than a Versus test, since Conflicts have Compromise.
However, in actual play, I have yet to allow players to have conflicts that would need to be resolved by dice rolling during the GM’s Turn. With several different groups of players, we’ve always been able to handle these situations using table talk and roleplay. There are player conflicts, but not player Conflicts. Given that, I think we may be trying to answer the wrong question. I believe that it actually suggests somewhere in the book that disagreements between players should be handled in the Players’ Turn (but I may be mis-remembering that), keeping the focus on the mission during the GM’s Turn. In the situations in my games where players have disagreed upon a course of action, they basically split the party and attempted both approaches, sometimes with less-than-optimal (but still fun to play) results.
It really seems like the best approach that holds to the rules as well as numerous suggestions on these forums is to require players to push on with the mission during the GM’s Turn and settle their differences (if they still feel strongly about it by then) during the Players’ Turn. Require this to be a full Argument Conflict, so that Compromise can be used.
).