Hi folks,
I just read the MG book yesterday after an impulse-buy, and I’ve convinced my gaming group to give it a shot this weekend. But I’m a little confused about something. And when I say something, I mean ‘how to play’.
Let’s say I design a mission with Wilderness and Animal obstacles. Gwendolyn tells them some far-flung town is having seagull problems. Go sort it out!
How many rolls does this take?
Now, the game says that the GM’s turn should take one to two hours, given all the twists and whatnot. But what’s to prevent them succeeding at the Wilderness obstacle (they Pathfind to the far-flung town), and then quickly dealing with the seagull in a brief Conflict? That’s one roll to arrive (one roll made by one player, even; not even one roll each!), and then a conflict that lasts, let’s say, two rounds. So each player has made between two and three rolls for the night’s session. That doesn’t seem like much ‘gaming’, in a way, and in my mind I can’t imagine it taking even one hour. It also doesn’t seem like much opportunity for RPing, using Traits, strategizing, etc.
Understand: we’ve been playing Savage Worlds for the past four years. Even though that’s considered a fairly light system, and even though we’re an RP-heavy crew, we’re used to having many opportunities for our characters to attempt to do things. So I’m just a little confused by the MG structure. I want to understand!
Finally, during the GM’s Turn, how free are players to invent new reasons for Tests? From all my previous gaming, I’m used to creating difficult situations and then stepping back and allowing the players to tackle them creatively. I’m not used to simply demanding Tests in order to overcome obstacles. If I were to describe, say, a brook that’s flooding a town, and then allow my players to come up with a series of Tests to ‘solve the problem’, am I doing it wrong? Should I instead just say, “Persuasion ob4 to convince the townsfolk to leave”?
Okay, thanks for any advice you can give! I’m really just trying to understand the rhythm of this game, because it seems so different from what I’m used to.
Preparing a session of Mouse Guard can be as easy as you describe, which is a good thing. It also means that, sometimes, the GM’s Turn and Players’ Turn go quickly, but we’ll come back to this.
In my sessions, I don’t like to use the mission goal as one of my mission hazards, which requires the players to use their checks to complete the mission during their turn. This creates a tension for the players between using their checks to complete their mission, and pursuing their own agendas. Because of this, it’s a good way to prompt the players to look for opportunities to earn more checks and engage with that part of the game’s economy, something that groups often struggle with at first.
So, if I was planning the seagull mission in your example, probably I’d use a Pathfinder test as one of the mission hazards, and then (because of the mission’s animal nature) use either a mice or weather hazard as the other one. You can pocket whichever one you don’t present initially as a potential twist. I’d play through the GM’s turn, presenting the players with these hazards and then, once they’ve reached their destination, call for the Players’ Turn. It’s now up to them to use their checks to deal with the seagull problem.
There’s more to planning a mission, though. You want to incorporate the characters’ Beliefs, Instincts, relationships, and hometowns into the situations with which you present them. Just like you want to set up conflicts between the players’ mission and their individual Goals, you want to set up situations that will be complicated by their Beliefs, Instincts, and character backgrounds.
It’s difficult, however, to plan memorable missions without this information. I strongly recommend playing at least one session with the characters and missions the books provides, before you all recruit your own characters. It’ll give your group a much better idea of how the game functions without having to invest a lot of time.
Finally, if you find that you blaze through a GM’s Turn-Players’ Turn cycle, just start another one in the same session. It’s easy to turn the fallout from one mission into a new assignment, and the players often have more to accomplish in their turn than they have checks to spend, so they’ll be eager to have another opportunity to pursue their own agendas (or just catch their breath and recover).
Good luck! I hope this was helpful, and be sure to let us know how your first session goes.
Well, the number of rolls is really dependent upon complexity of your obstacle. Since this is, as you say, a far-flung town, what does succeeding at a Pathfinding check mean? It means the party is able to follow a rarely used path. Given how seldom this route is traveled, it could be overgrown or blocked by something (fallen trees, etc.). They could discover Weasel tracks. At that point they will have to make decisions: do they try to clear whatever is blocking the road, continue on despite the hindrance to their speed, or turn around and report the Weasel problem? All of these lead force the group to make decisions. Decision often require rolls be made.
The point being, a single obstacle does not equal a single test and success doesn’t mean the further complexities of an obstacle disappear or aren’t there. I think you’ll be surprised at how easily a small obstacle quickly becomes a huge problem to solve.
Regarding the conflict, I think brief is probably better to start as the scripting system can seem a little wonky at first.
Regarding tests, let the players pursue what seems interesting to them. Let them talk out possible actions they would like to take. Once a decision has been made, have them roll.
Thank you both. I think I’m starting to get a clearer picture, now. So what you’re saying, if I’m not mistaken, is that players are allowed to react to descriptions, NPCs, and events and, in doing so, create new tests.
The book gives the example in the Instincts description of Saxon whipping out his sword at a bad time (say, in an argument, in public, with a dusty old archivist). The book suggested that the other players would all groan: “Oh, no! Not now!” But I didn’t understand what the consequence of this could actually be, if both the players and the GM were ‘locked in’ to an established Test for that obstacle; that is, no matter Saxon behaved they would simply need an appropriate skill roll to advance. What I think Vanguard is saying is that the GM could take Saxon’s instinct to throw in a series of Tests, or even a Conflict, to settle things back down again. Say, an Argument with the Archivist to calm him down, or a Chase to get out of town should the townspeople turn against the Patrol. Am I on the right track?
And Daniel, thanks for the advice on planning a mission. The idea of divorcing the GM’s Obstacles from the mission goal is a really interesting one and, as long as the players are given enough rolls to gain some checks, it seems like a great way to add strategic tension to the Players’ Turn.
More or less. Pulling his sword creates immediate tension. There is no way that the rest of the scene would progress without a test being rolled in that situation.
As the book says, instincts are automatic reactions. Using them to complicate situations leads to more conflict which leads to more tests.
Hi everyone,
We had our first session tonight, and it was pretty successful considering how much time was spent looking up the rules. Starting at first melt, Gwendolyn sent a rookie patrol to the far-flung beachside town of Lilyshore. A resident of that town braved the winter weather several months earlier to report that no grain caravans had arrived at Lilyshore in the autumn, and now the population faced possible starvation! Oh, no! Gwendolyn told the patrol to go check it out and render any aid they could, but first they needed a Persuasion roll to convince her that they could be trusted with such an ambiguous and far-away mission.
She told the Patrol Leader in private that two Guards, Mark and Tristram, had been sent to that area last summer to oversee the grain caravans, but never returned.
Obstacle One: Pathfinding through the winter-changed wilderness.
I described how a long winter can completely change the face of the terrain, and asked for an Ob5 Pathfinding roll. They offered a ‘complex task’ instead, and each player chose an appropriate skill to roll alone. The Ob for each was 2 or 3, and most of them failed (I think this was too hard).
Twist:
I declared that halfway to Lilyshore, they got stuck in a town just as a terrible storm broke. The town would be flooded, oh no! Frantically, they fought the storm by building flood-barriers and rescuing townsfolk from the rising waters. They failed the Complex Task of fighting the flood. After the first player had bombed his roll, I offered this as an opportunity for the others to incur the Negative Trait aspects against themselves, since their group had already failed. One player did so. The patrol saved the townsfolk, but incurred the Tired condition for fighting the flood all night long. A quick round of gratitude, and off to Lilyshore once more!
Obstacle Two: The Mighty Salmon.
When they arrived in Lilyshore, the patrol discovered that the grain caravans had been raided by mysterious bandits all autumn long, so the people were desperate with hunger. The Elder Council was engaged in a fierce debate: should they risk the lives of the town’s inexperienced fishermen by attempting to hunt one of the mighty Fanged Salmon, or should they wait for possible help to arrive from nearby Appleloft? The patrol put an end to this debate with a Persuasion test: they themselves would make a daring attempt to beach a Fanged Salmon!
Conflict:
MOUSE PATROL: Disposition: 9. Objective: Beach the Fanged Salmon, feed the town (Attack Animal conflict).
FANGED SALMON, Nature 5. Disposition: 9. Objective: Drown the mice and get away!
This took us quite a while to figure out, and by the time we did the night was getting on. The Patrol set out in adorable leaf boats, trailing a lure to tempt the salmon. Once the salmon took the bait, they would have to beat it into a weak enough state to be dragged ashore. After four rounds of conflict, they reduced the Salmon’s disposition to 0; theirs was reduced to 5. During the triumphant beach BBQ that followed, we all forgot that this should have meant a Moderate Compromise. Maybe one or two Guards should have been Injured, or Sick?
With those two Obstacles and one Twist taken care of, I ended the GM’s turn.
Players’ Turn:
The players didn’t have much time for their turn. The two obstacles I set took waaaay longer than I thought. Nevertheless…
The players discovered that the Summer Guards, Mark and Tristram, had passed through Lilyshore but hadn’t stayed long. An innkeeper’s daughter said they were abrasive and rude, and seemed to be sizing the place up!
Player 1 initiated an Admin Test ob1 to deliver the mail from the towns they’d passed through during the trek from Lockhaven, and to otherwise bring news and comfort to the now-fed people of Lilyshore (this was her Goal for the night).
Player 2 initiated a Scout Test to track down the bandits that had been ripping off the grain caravans. He succeeded, and discovered a mobile bandit camp headed by none other than ex-MouseGuards Tristram and Mark! Gasp, traitors!
Player 3 initiated a Resources Test ob1 to buy a new Hook-and-Line; he lost his during the Fanged Salmon battle. He failed the roll… and I forgot to mention that he could reduce his Resources by 1 and have it anyway.
We had two more checks to get through, but people had to leave. I quickly asked for votes on MVP and Workhorse. I tried to quickly jot down who had and had not completed their Goals, played their Beliefs, etc., but I think I lost some in the confusion.
So… that’s about all I remember. Besides running out of time during the Players’ Turn, does that sound more or less like a session of Mouse Guard?
Edit: We all had trouble with the concept of assisting each-other’s rolls. When can you do this? Always? During conflicts, even? During Complex Tasks?
not a bad idea to offer up a free test now and then on an underwhelming choice. You know they’ve got to have the mission, but offering the test gives them a chance to pick a pass or fail. I typically do this for Weather Watcher.
Good foreshadowing with the previous Guards sent to investigate.
Obstacle One: Pathfinding through the winter-changed wilderness.
I described how a long winter can completely change the face of the terrain, and asked for an Ob5 Pathfinding roll. They offered a ‘complex task’ instead, and each player chose an appropriate skill to roll alone. The Ob for each was 2 or 3, and most of them failed (I think this was too hard).
I would not let the players suggest turning my simple obstacle into a complex obstacle. But this depends on the presentation. You can get a lot of mileage from presenting the obstacle: Winter has changed the landscape since this trail was last traveled; you’ve got to travel a long way; what do you do, see, hear, smell, feel, think, talk about?
From that presentation, you may have a pretty set idea of what they need to test, but listening to the responses can often lead to a more dynamic approach. If they then describe a number of activities they are engaged in during the trip from Lockhaven to Lilygrove, and each/some of those activities seems like a good challenge (to the completion of the mission, to their Goals, to their Beliefs, to survival), then you could set down a factored obstacle or versus test.
But, don’t place a factored obstacle or versus test with the allowance in mind they can suggest a change from one test to many linked tests (nor from many linked tests to one test). Stick to your guns. This is an example of the ‘No Weasels’ rule. In your example, instead of a single Ob 5 Pathfinder which one PC tests and the other(s) help, each PC got a low Ob test (and probably all helped each other too, right?). That is an example of weaseling. They didn’t really face the same challenge; they didn’t face the same risk.
Twist:
I declared that halfway to Lilyshore, they got stuck in a town just as a terrible storm broke. The town would be flooded, oh no! Frantically, they fought the storm by building flood-barriers and rescuing townsfolk from the rising waters. They failed the Complex Task of fighting the flood. After the first player had bombed his roll, I offered this as an opportunity for the others to incur the Negative Trait aspects against themselves, since their group had already failed. One player did so. The patrol saved the townsfolk, but incurred the Tired condition for fighting the flood all night long. A quick round of gratitude, and off to Lilyshore once more!
as a piggy-back to the above comments; On whose test did you decide to Twist? Did each test of the above complex task fail? or most successes, but the Pathfinder failed? (great choice of Twist from Wilderness to Weather)
The rising flood waters prompted a complex test again? So, from obstacle to twist the PCs are still not making big risks, but small risks on each linked component. A difficult task of complex tests is to decide which leads to failure of the attempt (due to a twist) and which leads to Success with a Condition. I use them, but rarely offer more than two tests in a complex obstacle; one is the primary task only tangentially related to the other, yet both need to be faced at approximately the same time. I don’t often allow the patrol to be a helper for both tests of a complex obstacle–they must face one challenge or the other. Also, in complex tasks, I less often use a Twist and more often use Success with Condition.
Obstacle Two: The Mighty Salmon.
When they arrived in Lilyshore, the patrol discovered that the grain caravans had been raided by mysterious bandits all autumn long, so the people were desperate with hunger. The Elder Council was engaged in a fierce debate: should they risk the lives of the town’s inexperienced fishermen by attempting to hunt one of the mighty Fanged Salmon, or should they wait for possible help to arrive from nearby Appleloft? The patrol put an end to this debate with a Persuasion test: they themselves would make a daring attempt to beach a Fanged Salmon!
in this case I would have given the patrol an untested success for just stepping up with the suggestion. I wouldn’t require a Persuasion test unless I really had a back-pocket NPC who’d oppose the patrol’s intent.
Conflict:
MOUSE PATROL: Disposition: 9. Objective: Beach the Fanged Salmon, feed the town (Attack Animal conflict).
FANGED SALMON, Nature 5. Disposition: 9. Objective: Drown the mice and get away!
This took us quite a while to figure out, and by the time we did the night was getting on. The Patrol set out in adorable leaf boats, trailing a lure to tempt the salmon. Once the salmon took the bait, they would have to beat it into a weak enough state to be dragged ashore. After four rounds of conflict, they reduced the Salmon’s disposition to 0; theirs was reduced to 5. During the triumphant beach BBQ that followed, we all forgot that this should have meant a Moderate Compromise. Maybe one or two Guards should have been Injured, or Sick?
sure, they won, but should have experienced a compromise. Injuries or Sickness might have been a good trade. Another (though less appealing) compromise could have been, ‘you’ve beached the salmon, but it appears sick and the patrol/Elder Council doesn’t think it is good for eating.’
Compromises can be a tough spot. In this case, taking time for celebration is a lot more fun than pausing everything to hammer out a compromise. Maybe as you begin the following session, you can bring up the missed compromise and use it to fuel the next mission: Previously, on Mouse Guard … You beached the salmon, Lilygrove ate, mice are inspired by your courage; now let’s look at the consequences…
You might end up using less time to hammer out a compromise by simply offering the result and driving forward.
Players’ Turn:
The players didn’t have much time for their turn. The two obstacles I set took waaaay longer than I thought. Nevertheless…
The players discovered that the Summer Guards, Mark and Tristram, had passed through Lilyshore but hadn’t stayed long. An innkeeper’s daughter said they were abrasive and rude, and seemed to be sizing the place up!
Player 1 initiated an Admin Test ob1 to deliver the mail from the towns they’d passed through during the trek from Lockhaven, and to otherwise bring news and comfort to the now-fed people of Lilyshore (this was her Goal for the night).
Player 2 initiated a Scout Test to track down the bandits that had been ripping off the grain caravans. He succeeded, and discovered a mobile bandit camp headed by none other than ex-MouseGuards Tristram and Mark! Gasp, traitors!
Player 3 initiated a Resources Test ob1 to buy a new Hook-and-Line; he lost his during the Fanged Salmon battle. He failed the roll… and I forgot to mention that he could reduce his Resources by 1 and have it anyway.
good choices. You can also give the hook and line as a gift in the next session.
Edit: We all had trouble with the concept of assisting each-other’s rolls. When can you do this? Always? During conflicts, even? During Complex Tasks?
This is a good question.
First, players can offer help always. It can be help by Ability, Skill, Wise, or gear, according to what is most appropriate. Helpers choose one (1). The PC rolling the test (the primary on the test) can accept or refuse. I often encourage the primary to request help too with a specific request of a task to be helped.
Second, this can turn the complex task which players assume into a simple task with everyone helping. I’d like to return to your Ob 5 Pathfinder.
example text: [i]Your patrol has been assigned to reach Lilygrove and offer any needed aid; they have gone without grain caravans, so their food supply may be dwindling.
The first thing to do is get there. There is not a direct road, and this is shortly following the first thaw. Your patrol may need to rebuild trails, consider forks in the route, and be watchful of other mice in need of help along the way. As always, travel in the wilderness presents the threat of predators.[/i] [the GM intends an Ob 5 Pathfinder]
The patrol begins table-chatter (a good thing) about how to proceed: a bridge might have been damaged my frost and thaw–we’ll need Stonemason to repair; a merchant mouse may be lost–we’ll need to Scout; the Spring weather is unpredictable–we’ll need to Weather Watch; the trail may be under watch of a predator–we’ll need Hunter to track down beasts; the route will be several days and nights–we’ll need Survivalist; I’m sure to get hungry–we’ll need Nature (forage); etc.
While each player may think their own suggested skill calls for a test to determine success or failure, real or imaginary, Twist or Success, the GM does not have to provide a test for each. Imagine if each of the following tests failed: Ob 3 Stonemason to repair a bridge, Spring vs Weather Watcher to determine weather, Owl vs Hunter to determine presence of an owl. Even for a patrol of 3, if each PC tests and fails, which one gets to result in a Twist? Maybe the Stonemason and helpers are Tired, but the bridge is repaired; there is an owl that attempts a capture, but the Hunter and helpers come away Injured only; and the patrol walks into Shorestone to find an incoming storm will cause a flood. It is better to combine the tasks into one primary test with helpers adding flavor to the effort.
The most important task determining completion of the journey between Lock and Lily is the Pathfinder. Each patrolmate might help using Stonemason, Weather Watcher, Scout, Survivalist, Hunter, etc. while one patrolmate takes primary on the Ob 5 Pathfinder. Since the risk is higher, they’ve been able to shape that risk. I mean to say, a Weather Watcher helper may foreshadow a Weather Twist; a Hunter helper may foreshadow an Animal Twist; a Survivalist helper may foreshadow a Mice Twist; a Stonemason helper may foreshadow a ‘The Situation Gets Worse’ Twist (more on that in a moment).
You need only pick one of the helpers to build a Twist. And with that, we return to your example.
example text: The patrol reaches Shorestone and finds most of the town locked in panicked debate regarding the predictions of a local weather-mouse. It seems a storm is coming and the rains could flood the town–particularly the harbor district. [the GM offers a Weather Twist]
Table-chatter resumes …
So, that builds an organic Twist based on something the player brought up through a Helper die.
Now, a brief comment on ‘The Situation Gets Worse’ Twist which can be found on page 69. It is the last two sentences of the last paragraph on that page (excluding the example text in italic).
If the GM finds that the whole team wants to help each other using the same skill (or similar skills), or maybe sees the Helper Die was successful, but the primary test was failed, this could be a candidate for the whole situation to get worse. Maybe they’ve only thought to look out all sorts of outside trouble, but the GM wants to refocus on the primary task. Perhaps, in the table-chatter, the group has misread the situation and tried to make a test that avoids the real problem. In any case, a useful tool for saving up a Twist is to make the situation worse.
I used this once when the patrol was facing an Animal obstacle. They were pulling a cart with deliveries, but the trail was being watched by an owl. Their cart broke down, and I called for them to be watchful of an owl. The table-chatter led to them discussing how to rig the cart to keep moving the following day. I allowed a test to rig the cart [Resources Ob if I recall], but as it failed, I made the situation worse: Sure, they were able to get the cart moving, but the owl had spotted the patrol and had an interest. During the day, it woke from time to time and followed the patrol to be sure it could get close during the night. Next, the patrol decided it was best to stow the broken and slow cart under a root, place the parcel deliveries in another safe cache, and carry the mailbag with letters only; they were going to make a run north to reach Elmwood before the next nightfall to get away from the owl [Nature (escaping, hiding) vs Owl. That was successful, and we moved into the second obstacle.
Looks like a pretty good first session. Some thoughts off the top of my head:
The patrol having to convince Gwendolyn to allow them to undertake this mission seems unusual. Why were they brought in for a briefing in the first place?
I avoid tests in the GM’s Turn that are outside of the mission hazards, unless a player has an Instinct that gets around this (e.g. “Always check the weather before going on a mission.”). I would have skipped the test with Gwendolyn all together.
That being said, and this goes back to your original post, it can be difficult for players to earn a lot of checks with the limited number of tests in the GM’s Turn. I tend to shoot for one simple test and one conflict in each GM’s Turn, but sometimes I’ll replace the simple test with a complex obstacle either if I have more than three players or if it seems appropriate to the situation.
If it seems like a reasonable course of action, I would have been fine with the players offering up an alternative to the high Pathfinder obstacle (similar to the example under “Complex Obstacles,” page 92). Don’t forget to use the factors under the skill descriptions when setting your obstacles, although a quick glance at the Pathfinder skill looks like the difficulty indeed would have been in the 5 or 6 range. Also, I think you handled the twist well–a quick diversion, conditions applied due to failure, and then back on the road.
Players can help each other whenever it’s reasonable and backed up by roleplaying. For example, I wouldn’t let them offer each other help if they were trying to complete individual tasks within a complex obstacle simultaneously. See “Teamwork” starting on page 93, and “Teamwork in Conflicts” on page 102.
Anyway, I hope your players enjoyed the session. I’d say they made great use of the Players’ Turn. Try to follow up with the rest of the rewards at the beginning of the next session, and don’t forget that someone can earn a fate point for recapping the action (“The Prologue,” page 56).
Thanks for the great responses. Sounds like we’re largely on the right track but need to work out some details to run a smooth game.
You both noticed that I threw in a couple of ‘extra’ Persuasion tests, and asked about that. The answer is, just as Daniel mentioned, to build up more rolls to earn checks. I don’t know how the players can expect to earn even one extra check apiece if the GM session revolves around one Simple Obstacle and one Conflict (they can’t Invoke the Negative Aspect with a helping roll in the former case, can they?). I’m still figuring that out. I bet it’s like pacing a game, where you really just have to get some experience with it to judge it properly. So in the meantime I’ll give them a few low-consequence Tests to practice on.
RP-wise, our Patrol Leader had a rival in Lockhaven. His rival was also a Patrol Leader. So, before Gwendolyn gave them our team a mission, the Patrol Leader player and I went head-to-head in a Persuasion Test for ‘dibs’ on the mission.
Me: “This pack kids is inexperienced! They’ll get lost and give up at the first sign of trouble!”
Him: “Gwendolyn, my colleague here is right to point out our inexperience. I respect his qualities as a Guard, especially his ability to think on his feet. Nevertheless, my team and I will aspire to protect and maintain the Mouseguard’s good reputation, and to use our particularly diverse set of skills to deal with any problems that come up. If there’s something we can’t handle, we’ll invite the advice of local elders or send a runner back to Lockhaven for help.”
Me: “Aw, screw this smug brat! He’s a wimp!”
(The players would have got the job either way, but our Patrol Leader’s character would have been Angry if he’d lost the versus test against his rival).
Ken. “On whose failed Test did you decide the Twist?” (in reference to the Complex Obstacle that the team opted for in lieu of the Pathfinder ob5 Test I had in mind).
Not on one specific Test, but on the Patrol’s failed attempt to complete the Complex Task they had devised. As soon as one of them failed their roll, the Test was finished. I had planned a Weather twist in case the Pathfinder Obstacle didn’t pan out, and away we went.
thanks again for the rest of the thoughts that i didn’t get to mention. rest assured i’ve read your advice and i’ll take it to heart.
There aren’t any “low-consequence” tests in Mouse Guard. Any test is an opportunity either for advancement or to earn a check for the Players’ Turn, balanced against conditions and twists that hinder the patrol’s progress. In conflicts, the stakes are higher, because game-changing failure can be put on the table.
You can’t simply offer the players more tests without taking into account these factors, and if you start divorcing elements from one another (offering tests without consequences), you’re not really playing the game anymore.
I’m sure it’s merely a pacing issue for you all, and you’ll get the hang of it soon. Success and failure isn’t what’s interesting in Mouse Guard (except when it is, in which case you probably should use a conflict), it’s how do the situations the game master presents challenge the characters’ Beliefs, Instincts, Goals, and relationships? That’s what you’re discovering through play.
And creating those situations is worthy of its own discussion.
One other thing—being a guardmouse means constantly being torn between your duty to the Guard and your personal interests. There’s never enough time for both, and limiting checks for the Players’ Turn is one way the game evokes this.
Don’t forget about twists. A typical mission design has two obstacles and two twists. So, a simple obstacle and a complex one, plus a simple versus test and a conflict, for example. Lots of potential rolls, depending on how things go.
I’m still figuring that out. I bet it’s like pacing a game, where you really just have to get some experience with it to judge it properly. So in the meantime I’ll give them a few low-consequence Tests to practice on.
Failure is a Twist or a Condition.
RP-wise, our Patrol Leader had a rival in Lockhaven. His rival was also a Patrol Leader. So, before Gwendolyn gave them our team a mission, the Patrol Leader player and I went head-to-head in a Persuasion Test for ‘dibs’ on the mission.
That’s a fine Mouse obstacle. And Angry makes sense as a condition if they failed.
Not on one specific Test, but on the Patrol’s failed attempt to complete the Complex Task they had devised. As soon as one of them failed their roll, the Test was finished. I had planned a Weather twist in case the Pathfinder Obstacle didn’t pan out, and away we went.
I would have let everyone make their rolls and handed out conditions for the failures, then done the Weather twist if the Pathfinder test was a bust. That way if one of the mice uses Cartographer to make a map and rolls traitors you can say “So, in the morning we see Lieam collapsed over his desk, exhausted. He’s fallen asleep on the map, it took him all night but he’s got it all there. Liaem why don’t you describe the awesome map you’ve created to all of us. You earned it. Oh, and mark Tired.”