I think my experiences with MG are different than you all. Players would often argue about how to complete the mission. In fact, the Danger on the Scent Border mission begins with such an argument.
In every case, with players from all over the US and Europe, we have resolved that dispute with a versus test and carried out the mission according to the results.
Twists and conditions apply. In the example, if Sienna loses she is angry at having her authority undermined in front of her patrol. Or a twist causes the patrol to be ambushed while they argue.
I understand that the RAW might not be how you’re accustomed to playing, but I guarantee they produce satisfying results.
I just really wish I don’t come to that. I think it could be really useful in convention slots where you don’t know the players, they don’t know you and that could speed things up without getting into minutiae.
The same situation arose in my home groups during campaign play.
It appears you have an issue with quick social resolution. If that’s the case, I assure you it’s useful and effective. It’s a good tool for the GM to have. And if you are uncomfortable with this mechanic or any other in my games I entreat you to embrace them and expand your skills as an RPG player.
luke, I wouldn’t have a problem dealing out either of these results. My only question is, once you give Siena the Angry condition, does she get what she’s after? If not, where’s that written?
Right. Sorry. She loses the roll, and a bit of Player-GM-player discussion later determines that Elimys’s player is willing to cede his claim. Sienna gets to head in her direction, but is made angry for it. These are great moments to earn checks and rewards.
I’m cool with that. That’s basically what I was trying to suggest when I said to apply the condition and then treat it like a tie, seeing if one of them wants to decide things in favor of their opponent and earn a check.
I think my example was no so good. I never wanted to make it appear that the result was a tie. I don’t think it should be.
Again: You are a tenderpaw and I’m your mother and I don’t want you to go on that mission. If I beat you (if I win the versus test) I may decide to let you go, but now you suffer a Condition. I’m the GM, so I can do that. But, if I am just another player playing another patrol member, and we suffer a disagreement, I can do the exactly same thing. I’m the patrol leader, and you want to chase the weasels to their lair. I try to persuade you to stay with the patrol, and I have success. I beat your dice. But then I offer you the opportunity to leave. You may chase the weasels if you want, but now you are angry with me because you think I don’t trust you. It’s your decision. I let you make your choice.
Players negotiate with each other. All players. As a group. It’s part of what makes the game so much fun.
Etsu, sure we can negotiate all kinds of stuff and the players can make all kinds of suggestions, but ultimately the decision to apply a Twist or a Condition is the GM’s purview, right? We’re not just talking things out. We’re engaging the system. Otherwise, why make the dice roll?
In your example the GM gives my character the Angry condition in return for my getting my way, with your agreement and consent, maybe even at your suggestion. The roll resulted in your success, but you were cool with losing if my mouse got angry. If I was GM I’d be interested in whether you had a trait that would earn you a check or if you had a Belief or Instinct that came into play.