If they are not afraid of a compromise, then you’re either not setting tough enough goals or tough enough compromises.
Also (correct me if I’m wrong) if a side was planning to never select attack or feint as an action wouldn’t that imply they don’t actually have a goal other then spoiling the other guys goal? And if you are just trying to negate a goal without one if your own it’s supposed to be addressed as a test, not a conflict. Or at least a different sort of conflict (like chase) were avoidance is a viable goal and attacking thus has a different meaning.
What were the goals in your conflicts?
to arrest vs. to get away (winner was injured and it led to chase)
to catch vs. to get to the king (both sides lost all of disposition, they catched him right before the king)
to frame an innocent vs. to convice them of innocence (winner didnt lost any disposition)
to kill vs. to kill (winner was injured)
Whomever is offering up those compromises is going easy on you.
You’re right not to fear injury in Mouse Guard. Being injured is a nuisance, but not nearly as threatening as losing a conflict outright or even a nice compromise. Man, I can win challenges with a compromise.
Some questions:
Did the winning team always use A/A/A?
In the tie, did both sides use A/A/A?
In the death vs death conflict, did both sides use A/A/A?
-L
Corvus, for what it’s worth, our group often did Attack/Attack/Attack, but I also found it useful to mix in a Maneuver choice – usually M/A/A, A/M/A, or A/A/M. Maneuver has been useful for two main cases:
-
We outclassed our opponent and wanted to go for a higher level of victory (i.e. less compromise), as other posters have mentioned.
-
We had a poor roll for Disposition compared to our opponent, but had more dice than our opponent and/or a lot of points to spend.
Usually one out of three was sufficient for case #1, but two out of three (like M/A/M) was potentially viable for #2. I never recommended Defend or Feint to the group, but over time I might do one of them very rarely just to keep the GM guessing.
I don’t think that’s true. For example, in our toughest conflicts, we were just hoping against hope for a win at all. We were trying for either a marginal victory, or to get compromises on the opponent’s victory.
I have to agree with Luke … those results look a bit weird. Do you remember if they were minor/major compromise? I hope you don’t mind if I ask for more details. Conflicts and compromises are one of the more interesting mechanics in the game, and it would be great to see a variety of examples.
I assume the winner in all these conflicts used “A/A/A” … who was the winner in each conflict, the GM or the players?
-
“Arrest” vs “Get Away” … I’m wondering why this wasn’t framed as a chase conflict in the first place. I’m guessing the Arresters won, and the compromise was that a few of the run-aways were arrested and a few were able to get away … I’m not quite sure if I would have allowed a follow-up twist of yet-another-chase-conflict.
-
“Catch Opponent” vs “Get to King” … I’m guessing the Catchers won, and the compromise is that the opponent almost got to the King. Depending on how significant “getting to the king” was, the Catchers must have been giving a major compromise?
-
“Frame an Innocent” vs “I am Innocent” … winner didn’t lose any disposition … I’m curious, what actually happened? One side roll no successes?
-
“Kill” vs “Kill” … winner is injured … and what? If you check the rules on mousie death (p. 130), even a minor compromise can allow the loser to do “one last act”. What did the loser get out of this compromise?
I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition! 
anyway, your point is that tougher compromises would lead to using more defend actions and that would lead to more using of feint action?
I dont know, in my experience, people dont think about consequences and compromise until the end of conflict. goal is to win a then we see the price.
In my game I as GM consciously tried not to use this aaa tactics but eventualy did. the players (that were not aware of my view of this issue) choose mostly attacks and supported it with maneveurs (this action actually doubles as good defense as it is vs attack)
defend was used only when the disposition was low in an attempt to raise it. they almost never used feint as it was seen as far too risky against the storm of attacks.
conflict was almost always started with attack on both sides. it was just the most sensible thing to do, next best thing is maneuver. defend has no sense as you cannot raise your disposition in first round. and feint was not the best option either, because no on ever started conflict with defend.
A few harsh consequences, like one that specifically excludes successful mission completion, as part of the opposed intent, and driving harder bargains, and yes, you will see more thought.
For example, the predators are hungry… so the declared intent is to kill and eat the mice. At any level past minor, a mouse is dead. That means a PC needs replacement. Do it a few times, and the Players will start realizing that AAA is a fast and reckless approach.
And it is reckless. It’s saying “I’m going to take you out no matter the punishment I may take.” It’s suitable for a wolverine defending cubs. It’s suitable for Saxon, when provoked. It’s not suitable for Kenzie…
Until you try other strategies and have consequences with teeth, an AAA strategy can seem superior.
Likewise, when you are down several dice, MAD and MDA become far more desirable…
Read the rules on killing characters… Pages 130-131… compromises suck.
compromises should be brutal, and intents shoot for the moon…
You’re being WAY too nice for the way the rules work.
A minor compromise, that’s not so bad…
a moderate, should be something unpleasant.
A Major, your opponent almost won.
Some film comparisons:
Robin & Marion: the big fight scene, where they exhaust themselves: Major compromise.
Red Sonja: Sonja wins vs Conan… I’d say a moderate compromise… He doesn’t put her in her place, but does tire her out…
SW Ep 3: Anikin vs Obi Wan… Moderate. Obi Wan’s intent was to kill or turn Ani… Ani’s was to kill… Ani opts for being left for dead rather than convert. Obi Wan agrees, and leaves unscathed.
SW Ep 1: Qui Gon vs Darth Maul: Qui-Gon and Darth Maul tied. Both die.
SW Ep 4: Vader and Obi Wan. Obi Wan’s intent was to let the ship escape; Vaders was to best Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan won, but had only a point of dispo left… hence his death. Major Compromise.
SW Ep4: Luke vs Stormtroopers (chase)… luke wins, moderate compromise. Luke runs smack into a new complication obstacle (the chasm). Luke makes the pathfinder roll, with the bonus die from his belt, and a help die from leia…
I loved these examples! Thanks!!!
((Corvus)): choose mostly attacks and supported it with maneveurs (this action actually doubles as good defense as it is vs attack)
Wait … going back to the original post. Doesn’t that answer your question as to “what stops attack” … well … TWO things: defense and manuevers.
((Corvus)) I dont know, in my experience, people dont think about consequences and compromise until the end of conflict. goal is to win a then we see the price.
That is a problem. It is kinda based on other RPG (ie D&D) thoughts: “Hey, I have more hitpoints than my opponent. So I’m doing well.” Healing up health is cheap in other RPGs; but it can be pretty hard to recover from low disposition. Recovery checks can really cut into the amount of time the players have in their Player’s Turn, which means they won’t have advanced the storyline as much as they would want before the GM’s Turn comes around and NAILS them hard again.
And then the players get stuck in BOHICA.
Wait … going back to the original post. Doesn’t that answer your question as to “what stops attack” … well … TWO things: defense and manuevers.
nope. with ‘stops’ I mean that opponent cannot roll dice. there is no action that ‘stops’ attacking opponent.
Corvus: I think you’re actually analyzing the opening gambit correctly. Start with an A because you literally have nothing to lose. M is an excellent second play because you’ll get SOMETHING, and hopefully it’s better than a straight A roll. Since I often start with an A, I’ll often end my first go with a D to try and buy back some dispo – because, in our games, we talk a bit in advance about likely compromises. That helps set the stage for what losing will actually look like, and that lights a fire under everyone to avoid it.
I think it’s really, really easy to “game” the Conflict system in a way it wasn’t intended. Like, getting into a fight where you truly don’t care about the compromise – you’re supposed to care, and if you don’t then you’re not playing the system in good faith. My players do that sometimes; it’s rare but it comes up sometimes. As GM, my job is to suss that out and keep poking 'til I come up with something they DO care about.
p.
Ah!
Well, the fact that there’s no “Stop Attack” action is not a problem, in my opinion. I think we’re back to the original retort: if there was a way to shutdown attack, then the conflict would have an extremely hard time getting resolved.
Yeah … now I’m really curious as to how well your game experience will be if you used your own variant method in your game. If all the arguments presented in this thread haven’t convinced you, I think the only solution is to let you find out if your methods work!
(Using your proposed method, I think what would normally take 20-30 minutes in conflict rounds would now take 80-120 minutes.)
(edit)
((Paul B))getting into a fight where you truly don’t care about the compromise – you’re supposed to care, and if you don’t then you’re not playing the system in good faith.
Agreed. And again, I think that’s a carry-over from the days in D&D where as long as you have a positive Hit Point value, it doesn’t matter how low it gets; because you can always get healed up, and that healing is usually “free”.
As for Kenzie and Saxon, I think that depends on the goals. If Kenzie had a suitable goal in the conflict, such as “protect the mice of the town,” then I think it would be completely appropriate to do A/A/A. If the goal was “kill the opponent” (and it was not necessary for a greater purpose) then I think that this was a poor choice of goal – though if it is a fight where Kenzie was helping Saxon, then it might be appropriate.
As for being reckless, I feel that a strategy using Defend is often more risky than one using only Attack or Attack and Maneuver. It seems like you’re implying that if I use Defend, that means that I will win by more in the end. That isn’t generally true. The GM can try to make compromises hurt more. However, the problem is that if the conflict is one where even a major Compromise is a nearly unacceptable result to the players, then it’s likely to be one where losing is even more unacceptable.
Generally speaking, I think that Attack/Attack/Attack is a fine, solid choice for conflict and should not be considered reckless or risky. Mixing in a Maneuver is fine as an alternative, but Defend and especially Feint are risky choices.
if there was a way to shutdown attack, then the conflict would have an extremely hard time getting resolved.
(Using your proposed method, I think what would normally take 20-30 minutes in conflict rounds would now take 80-120 minutes.)
I dont think so. As far as I see, the biggest change would be feint becoming more used at expense of now overused attack. and feint is ‘active’ action, that moves the conflict towards the resolution. but really I have to find out in actual play.
edit: hmm and defend would become more reliable as there would be no action that negates it. but I dont think that it would become overused and then the conflict would drag out. players know that just defending takes them nowhere and they want to win.
JHK: Thing is, in conflict, most characters roll more dice for defend than for attack. (critters don’t, just mice and weasels.) Certain exceptions, like Saxon, also occur; 6D attack, 5D defend…
However, in a group, if you have one strong defender (nature 5 or 6, and a suitable defense), with help (usually +2D or +3D), and a suitable weapon (+1D), and a good trait (+1D), you’re looking at 7D-10D defense. more than most critters nature, and hence, worth using…
Also, in team use, the AAA strategy means of a 3 mouse team, every one makes one attack; fine, when everyone is even… but if you’ve a F6N4 and a F3 N6, and a F4 N4, facing a nature 6 critter…your best bet is to Attack with F6N4, Defend with F3N6, and take your choice with F4N4. The defend will expect 9D, or 4s, vs the 3s of the N6 critter. The Defend is thus NOT useless, does build up Dispo, and also nullifies the attack… usually.
Also remember, when not teamed up, if everyone does AAA, they may as well be a team for purposes of damage; only one gets to roll.
What we’re trying to get at here is that this is the least appropriate time to A/A/A, because you’re not guarding your disposition. If you lose half your disposition, you lose half the mice you’re protecting. You should fight to keep every point of disposition you have, because those are the lives of the townsmice you’re fighting to defend.
As for being reckless, I feel that a strategy using Defend is often more risky than one using only Attack or Attack and Maneuver. It seems like you’re implying that if I use Defend, that means that I will win by more in the end. That isn’t generally true. The GM can try to make compromises hurt more. However, the problem is that if the conflict is one where even a major Compromise is a nearly unacceptable result to the players, then it’s likely to be one where losing is even more unacceptable.
I’m not following you here. Obviously, if a major compromise is unacceptable, then losing is moreso. But A/A/A doesn’t mean you won’t lose, and you stand a good chance ending up suffering the unacceptable major compromise (presuming you don’t completely destroy your opponent in the first couple volleys). The idea in Defending is to keep your disposition as high as possible to keep compromises minor. I think it’s incorrect to say “the GM can try to make compromises hurt more”; the GM is in the wrong if he’s making minor compromises out to be more than they’re worth, as it devalues the entire point of tracking disposition.
Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding you, here (and if I am, I apologize), but if both parties always script A/A/A (or A/M/A or A/A/M), nobody’s guarding their disposition, and there’re going to be a whole lot of compromises, major compromises, and even incidents where both sides lose disposition simultaneously. That should matter to the PCs. If the group has set appropriate goals, there shouldn’t be many situations where both sides don’t care if they take a compromise.
-B
Well, for mice not trained in fighting, this will certainly be true. For PC guardsmice, it’s hard to say what “most” is – PCs are often exceptional.
Best to look at the characters in question.
There are 12 sample PC’s… Let’s check.
baron F4 N4
Dain F2 N4
Kenzie F3 N5
Kyle F3 N5
Lieam F3 N4
Nathaniel F2 N5
Quentin F3 N6
Robin F3 N4
Sadie F3 N5
Saxon F6 N3
Sloan FX N6
Thom F4 N4
I’d say that’s most.
What do you want to optimize for? For just ‘winning’, or do you want to get your Goal without having to give any compromise (that is, win while having full disposition)?
In the first case Attacking all the time may be best, if you think you can pull your opponent’s disposition down faster. If not, you’re essentially playing the second case, as you care about preserving your disposition.
In the second case, you want to Attack against Feints or Feint against Defend to win, and Defend and Maneuver appropriately to block any incoming attacks. Your strategy depends on what you think your opponent is doing. If he’s Attacking all the time, and you don’t want to lose disposition, then you should periodically Defend and Maneuver to protect against this. But if you will be playing these, then your opponent will do well to play Feint at the appropriate time. Similar thinking gives incentive to all options.
One thing we can see, is that you should never play Defend when at full disposition, as Maneuver is at least as good and possibly better, since you can’t increase disposition.