We had the first session of our game today (went well, was fun, nothing to shout about, though), and as GM I ran into a couple rules questions about helping that I’m having trouble finding answers to in the book.
The players were in a Speech conflict with an NPC, and no one had Orator. The first player to attack used his Nature instead as per the rules, but I wasn’t sure if I should have let the other players (none of whom had the Orator skill) use their Nature to help him. I didn’t, but I wasn’t sure all the same. Can Nature help a roll when the original player testing is going against his Nature instead of using a skill?
This leads into my next question about help. I know the book says that those who help share rewards and defeats, but, say, I help my buddy on his Pathfinder roll, but he fails and becomes Angry as a result. Do I also become Angry as a result? If I’m helping on a Nature/Resources/Circles roll and my buddy becomes taxed or depleted in some way, do I also become taxed or depleted?
Not a helping question, but I’m curious nonetheless: during the Player’s Turn, one of the players wanted to use his free test to make an Instructor test to teach the mice of Pebblebrook how to better defend themselves. The rules for Instructor state that the skill is used for transmitting skills from one player to another. I thought his idea was cool (and it went with his Belief), and it seemed harmless, so I let him make the Instructor test even though he was only transmitting knowledge fictionally to NPC mice. Is there any problem with this? I suspect not, as all I’m really doing is allowing the player to “waste” his Instructor test by not having a free test go to another PC. Anyway, I still want to ask. I don’t want to get too far from the book and start ruining things.
I have a feeling the answer to #2 is in the book, but I’m seriously reading the book right now and having a hard time finding it. I’ll keep looking. Thanks!
Page 94. You Reap What You Sow: helping players suffer a lesser condition.
Cool. Great stuff for the players’ turn. I would have made him make an Orator test first, to get the mice in order for Instruction. Then I would have allowed the Instructor test. Of course, since the mice of Pebblebrook are very mouselike, I would have required 5-7 Instructor tests before they really know how to defend themselves – in other words, until they learn the Fighter skill.
Cool. Great stuff for the players’ turn. I would have made him make an Orator test first, to get the mice in order for Instruction. Then I would have allowed the Instructor test. Of course, since the mice of Pebblebrook are very mouselike, I would have required 5-7 Instructor tests before they really know how to defend themselves – in other words, until they learn the Fighter skill.
And would each of those test (Orator & all the Instruction tests) cost the player a separate check? Just curious…
Yes, RAW states they each cost a check. Sometimes you can’t accomplish what you’re after in one single check. GM’s role in the players’ turn is to prompt the players with the rules. And there’s no reason to let this particular situation break the check/test currency.
Good to know. Every time I read a post of yours, Luke, I realize I need to be harder on them, making them really fight to get what they want. I’m not so good at this!
Why the 5-7 tests? I know Let It Ride isn’t a rule in MG, but it seems implicit, especially after this post by you:
What’s the thought behind making him make 5-7 Instructor tests to teach the mice the skill?
OH. Is it that it would take about that many tests for a PC mouse to learn the skill from an Instructor per the Instructor skill rules? That would make sense. Just want to be clear on this one.
Yes, you need a number of instructions/attempts equal to your Nature. Mousefolk tend to have a higher Nature (since they are more mouselike than the Guard).