Excellent discussion !!!
+1 MG!
Best game ever.
Good to see that you got the hang of it!
It really is incredible how easily those twists and turns become a full fledged adventure.
Hi,
I will start GMing Mouse Guard soon. I understand the structure of your sample missions and those in the book. That is the easy part. Still got some questions:
- Are those the only times when dice are rolled in your game?
- And who decides what skills are used for those objectives?
- Do you check other skills only in complex obstacle (p. 92)? Or do you test some skills before?
- Includes every mission a confict obstacle? Only two simple tests for 2h minimum game time seems not so much.
Thanks in advance!
Max
-
Generally, yes. The fun part of RPGs such as Mouse Guard (in my opinion) is not in rolling dice (“roll playing”), but in acting out your character (“roleplaying”) in the collaborative fiction crafted by you and your gaming group. Also remember that each die roll outside of a Conflict has the potential for fairly big repercussions for the characters involved with that roll (the character of the player making the test as well as any helping characters). Gaining a Condition which cannot be dealt with until the Players’ Turn due to a failed roll is something that players should be generally trying to avoid. How do they avoid this? Most of the time, it’s by roleplaying. I’m not sure if this is a good way to put this, but it’s almost like every Test in Mouse Guard is more like the equivalent of a Saving Throw in D&D. When it gets to the point where you have to Test/Save, something more important than losing a hit point or two is generally on the line.
-
The GM should design a mission with specific skills in mind. However, players should be allowed to recommend alternatives, as well as use their -Wises to assist other players (pp. 92-94). Make sure they don’t just say, “I’m using my whatever-wise” and throw a helper die to the testing player. Make the helper actually roleplay what that help means, and the tester actually roleplay what their test means.
-
In my games, I’ve found that Complex Obstacles can be a fun way to make a shorter version of a Conflict, or to set up scenes in which teamwork is the theme (ie. the “spotlight” is on multiple characters, rather than one character with potential helpers). Just remember: if you create a Complex Obstacle for your players that contains 3 tests, you’re giving them 3x the potential to acquire a Condition or trigger a Twist.
-
I try to usually have at least one Conflict in my games. Starting out, I would recommend limiting the number of Conflicts to 1 or 2 at most per session, and keep the rest of your tests as simple or complex obstacles. After a session or two, you should get the hang of what works for your group, and how long the various types of tests take to play out.
Finally, make sure that your players understand that they need to earn checks, or they will not be able to do much of anything useful during the Players’ Turn. In my group, most of the fun of the game comes not from passing or failing tests/conflicts, but from the players creatively putting their characters into sticky situations or harm’s way in order to earn checks and/or experience.
I hope you find this helpful.
-
During the GM’s Turn, usually yes. But you have the Player’s Turn too.
-
Depends of what the patrol is doing. As the GM, you could say: “You must find an alternative way to Ironwood; test Pathfinder.” Or: “If you want to find traits of the thieft you have to test Scout.” Or you also may present a problem to the mice and wait to heart what the patrol is going to do: “Are you lying to him? Test Deceiver.” Or: “Do you want to talk to the bat? Then you will need to test Loremouse.”
-
You, the group, talk, ask questions, describe things. Then, when it’s important, when you want to know what happens, you roll dice. Mice do things, fictional things. You roll dice only when that things they do conflicts with something someone else is doing. (The patrol wants to go to Hardwater but the wheater makes it difficult. The patrol leader wants to infiltrate the thieft gang but Saxon thinks is dangerous. The animal wants to eat the tenderpaw but Kenzie is not going to allow it. Etc.)
-
Usually. But if you don’t put a Conflict as an Obstacle but as a Twist, and players are very lucky (so the GM’s Turn becomes too short), don’t worry: do the Player’s Turn stuff and then start a new GM’s Turn!
Can someone explain to me this concept of “Complex Obstacles”? I can see, reflecting back on my recently posted GMing reports, A New Mouse Guard GM Report #2 more so than A New Mouse Guard GM Report #1, how this could be a useful structure to reign in or channel my GMing tendency to allow for too many player checks during an open ended roleplaying scene.
Of course, as I read some of the advise above, I can also see that I need to be more willing to allow good roleplaying to stand on its own two feet rather than always feel the need to call for an actual Obstacle check to determine the ultimate result.
Complex Obstacles (described on page 68 ) are used when the GM wants to break down a task into a number of tests, rather than just a single test. When I run them I use conditions on failure until the final test, where I may slip in a Twist.
Right: Ooops inadvertent emoticon. Fixed.
Totally overlooked that. Thanks. The examples of a simple verses complex obstacle on pages 67-68 are very useful.
While I tend to use a twist of some form whenever it’s thematically appropriate to the test.
Conflict is the archetypical complex test… but there’s a whole spectrum shy of Conflict…
Just to make sure I understand … unlike Conflicts (which have their own unique game mechanic), Complex Obstacles are just a discrete series of individual Obstacles using the standard mechanic for an Obstacle check. So, what is an ideal to strive for in defining a number of individual Obstacles inside a Complex Obstacle? I understand that one needs to be flexible and that no two circumstances will be exactly the same, but what’s a goal to shoot for? Is it two or three individual checks, depending on the circumstances? What is a reasonable maximum that I should try not to exceeded? Four or five checks? It seams to me that if the number of checks is greater than four or five, a full blown conflict should be considered. Am I in the ball park on this or is my I thinking way off the rails?
To take this from the abstract to the specific, let’s look the “Dam Beaver” mission in Mouse Guard’s New Rules and New Missions. At least two Obstacles are suggested – a check to calm/organize the townmice and a check to build a dike (or otherwise respond to the immediate flooding). This is, as I understand it, already an example of a Complex Obstacle with two individual challenges embedded within. However, this scene is fairly open ended and the sky’s the limit on the direction players could take the the story in terms of possible solutions to the problem at hand. So, should my goal as the GM be to keep the Complex Obstacle to two (no more than three) individual obstacles, regardless of the direction the players take the scene? Or, depending on the complexity of what the patrol tries to pursue, should I be willing to allow three or four checks (as long as they are not for the same type of task), depending on what feels appropriate at the time?
As I look back on how this adventure is written, the reason for a Complex Obstacle verses turning it into a Conflict is how distinct the individual Obstacle checks seem to be. To take the two examples above – calm/organize the townmice (a social Obstacle) verses building a dike (a science or laborer Obstacle). Such diverse checks just don’t lend themselves to the very specific set of skills inherent in the Conflict mechanic. On the flip side, if I think a situation warrants three or more skill Obstacles of the same type (such as three or more Scouting checks), then I should be looking at turning the Complex Obstacle into a Conflict. I am thinking correctly on this?
To use one final example in my recent experience running “Danger on the Scent Border”, I allowed no less than SEVEN individual Obstacles checks, which even to my newbie GMing sensibilities was beginning to feel excessive. Part of the reason I allowed so many checks was that the players took the patrol in a direction I did not expect and the players were just having so much fun coming up with creative ideas. I wanted to reward that. However, on the flip side, if they failed more of their checks (which the Mouse Guard system actively encourages the players to do), allowing so many checks could have been an unnecessary burden on the patrol in the weasel conflict that followed. I also see that four of the seven Obstacle checks that I allowed were Scout Obstacles. While each of these checks seemed appropriated given the circumstances at the time, should I have alternately allowed the first check to cover some or all of the following Scout checks and just allowed the players to roleplay their followup ideas? To put in another way, am I thinking of Obstacles to much in D&D terms and not enough in Mouse Guard terms? How off the mark was I here, in everyone’s experience? A little or a lot?
Thanks for helping me get my barrings. - Mark
Two or three tests sounds fine to me. You present the obstacle, the players tell you what the patrols is going to do to beat that obstacle, you decide if they need a test or more to overcome such obstacle, and then they test.
I don’t disagree with your break point…
however… the break down for complex obstacles is “rule of common sense” more than “what’s my budget”…
Keeping in mind, however, that the budget for a mission should be 1 test per player plus up to another 2 tests per player. As in, I have 3 players. I’ll try to schedule 3 tests in my mission prep. Not of need what they ARE, but three situations that require at least one test. This is likely to be, for novice MG players, 3 encounters. For more expert ones, 2, with one aiming to be “beyond them” just enough to force a twist for the third.
Complex obstacles enable (1) larger parties, (2) more tests per player without more encounters, or (3) more use of twist encounters to lengthen the session.
More tests per player means (1) more checks able to be earned, (1a) longer player turn (due to more checks), (2) faster experience gains to skills, (3) longer GM turn, due to more handling time, (4) more twists and/or conditions, (5) potentially more imbalanced Player Turn if any one player starts hogging the spotlight.
I use complex obstacles generally when an intent/method is clearly using multiple skills.
The Dam
So, organizing the dam building could easily be an Orate for getting the people to help with the work, separate from the Orate to calm them, plus a scientist for the actual plan, Laborer for the mousehandling the wood, and possibly Loremouse to enlist the local beavers’ help. Remember also: failure need not be condition nor actual twist; it can be complication (loss of resources, or requirement to do something else now or later). For example, the beavers might want a mirror… so you’ll need to go get one later, during the player turn.