Is this a hack or something else entirely?

Here’s what I’ve been thinking of doing with Mouse Guard.

Changes:

1a) A new resolution system. There would still be the contextual matrix of conflict (the basic structure of GM turns and players turns), but what you can do in those turns, and the dice mechanics used would be changed.

1b) A different action table and somewhat different process. Long story short (and I believe I read an old thread about this). Attack has an edge, statistically, in a majority of situations. I have a few ideas to balance it out, and open up the possibility for a larger diversity of actions in conflict.

1c) A different approach to wild (i.e. non-intelligent) animals. Specifically, no more Nature + Nature.

  1. A revamp of weapons and armor.

  2. Magic.

4a) I’m likely to introduce intelligent snakes. It would really complement what I have planned for magic.

4b) There’s the slight chance I would get rid of Weasels or at least change their species. For what I have in mind, I could see Snakes and Weasels potential working together, but I might be better off either nixing them entirely, or going with another Reptile.

What I’d definitely be keeping:

1a) The players are part of a predominantly apolitical organization striving to ensure the survival of the species.

1b) Mission oriented campaigns. This really works with the GM/Player turn bit.

  1. Cloaks and their symbolism. I really liked that element.

  2. The general structure, culture, and effect of seasons.

  3. Most of the same character elements (Attributes and Skills), and similar character creation method.

My original thought was to do something like Mouse Guard 1325, set far enough into the future to separate it from the original storyline. Considering that a lot can happen in ~175 years, it gives me a big enough window to introduce new elements (and even plot the extinction of the Weasels). If I do that, then it’s still Mouse Guard (the setting), though the system is still going to be quite different. Then again, with all the changes I have in mind, it might be better to consider it as something different than bastardize a perfectly decent system/setting already in place. But, considering I’d still be copping the cloaks and the basic idea of the Guard, is it really much different? I’m not sure. Thoughts?

I’m glad you kept the cloaks.

I’m glad you kept the cloaks.

haha… :smiley:

The prevailing bias in the forum, I think it’s fair to say, is that mechanics contribute heavily to what happens at the table (in other words, they’re not arbitrary - the mouse guard Conflict system, for example, is designed to emphasize teamwork and turn-taking). So it sounds like you’re doing something loosely inspired by the same setting, but you’re wanting to use completely different mechanics, which will make it a completely different RPG, where different things happen (socially, narratively, etc.) at the table.

Another bias is a “play” bias. (e.g. “This rule is a problem.” “Why, what problem did it cause in play?”) Mouse Guard (like Burning Wheel and I daresay especially Burning Empires) have more going on that meets the eye, so tweaking one rule often creates side effects you may not have wanted, but which you’ll only discover in play. (I’ve been snared by this a few times.)

Yeah, I think I’ve been “snared” by it, too. You can pretty much scrap most of my original post. I’m rereading the book and working out the math for some of my tweaks and I’m finding that most of my ideas for change are really unnecessary. Still, I’m planning to take a crack at the action matrix, as well as weapons and armor.

I also still want to do a bit with snakes and magic, but I can work that into the “future” setting plan without a problem.

I’m definitely interested in your ideas for handling magic!

I have quite a few half-baked ideas, but I’d want some actual play experience (F2F for IM) before I start mucking about with my magic system. So far, I’ve only been reading the book and running some numbers on my own. This is a bit off topic, but how does one find an online MG game?

I’m compelled to say that, for gameplay reasons, this is intentional.

Post in Player Search that you’re looking for an online game or that you’re interested in organizing one.

I’m compelled to say that, for gameplay reasons, this is intentional.

Really? Why do you think?

You can’t block/evade your way to glory?

If Defend was more powerful than Attack, conflicts would result in a stalemate more often than not.

Mouse Guard is a game about fighting for what your character believes; it’s rare to enter a conflict and come out unscathed. Making attack the best action in most situations causes players to be proactive (like Justin said), keeps conflicts from bogging down (like Luke said), and creates compromises that propel the narrative. It puts a price on achieving your character’s goals.

You can’t block/evade your way to glory?

Mouse Guard is a game about fighting for what your character believes

Well, I get that the overarching theme is to be heroic despite a humble nature, but I don’t think that macro-level idea necessarily needs to translate into every micro-level action.

Making attack the best action in most situations causes players to be proactive (like Justin said), keeps conflicts from bogging down (like Luke said), and creates compromises that propel the narrative.

You’re just as proactive if you’re defending, maneuvering, or feinting; it’s merely a different narrative. And, actually, Attack being the more powerful option reduces compromises. Attack is more powerful because it has a higher rewards to risk ratio. This means that AAA is the more likely to leave you with more disposition at the end of a conflict than any other strategy. As for bogging conflicts down, you’re right. If it was more balanced people would be playing more strategically (thereby taking more time) rather than just whacking away at each other. I don’t think that would necessarily be a bad thing.

If Defend was more powerful than Attack, conflicts would result in a stalemate more often than not.

You’re right. Both sides would just keep defending and maxing out their disposition. Nothing would get accomplished, and nobody would really be working towards their goal. However, if they were all balanced, and none was more powerful than the other, the context (and not the system) would drive the strategy.

Is this a hypothesis, or have you noticed this during actual play with a patrol?

A party of three of four mice takes turns, and each will have different strengths. Different actions require different skills (in combat, Attack/Feint require Fighter (or Hunter) while Defend and Maneuver can use Nature), and mice commonly have higher Nature than Fighter. Bows and Shields have the highest bonus of any weapons, +2D to Defend and Maneuver, respectively. Also, scripting Defend vs. a likely Attack is a good way to earn checks for the player’s turn. The versus test gives you a chance for a tie you can throw, and giving the enemy +2D to Attack is safer when you’re opposing with a Defend - both earn two checks.

If both sides choose this gambit (and, given what you lay out above, why wouldn’t they?), they both will suffer considerable loss of disposition, meaning the winner will owe the loser a compromise.

In addition to what Michael said above; Beliefs, Goals, Instincts, Traits, earning checks for the players’ turn, and earning tests for skills and abilities all create context for a player’s choices when engaged in a conflict.

Okay. I would say that it should translate into every action, absent some compelling reason not to. The game is played on an action by action basis.

Is this a hypothesis, or have you noticed this during actual play with a patrol?

Well, it’s more of a mathematically tested theory. I haven’t had the chance for any actual play. I’m kind of in the middle of nowhere, so pulling a group together is a little difficult. But, I’ve read some old threads, and seen some others that bring up the same issue and there’s never really a direct response. To borrow from MG, the reaction is more of a Maneuver than a Defend. :stuck_out_tongue:

A party of three of four mice takes turns…

That is all a good point, and I’m glad you brought it up as it brings to light another thing I noticed. If my mouse is alone, and facing off against a single enemy (e.g. snake), my mouse gets one action to the snake’s one action (or three to three). If I have two other buddies with me, not only does the entire team only get one action to its one action, but we’re also not likely to have three times the disposition, despite effectively having three times the strength. Now, it’s obvious why it works out this way from a flow of gameplay standpoint, but it does seem a little odd conceptually.

In any event, you make a good point for Maneuver and Defend when using a bow or shield (and using it to get more checks), though it’s still not terribly useful for the conflict at hand.

If both sides choose this gambit (and, given what you lay out above, why wouldn’t they?), they both will suffer considerable loss of disposition, meaning the winner will owe the loser a compromise.

Of course, but you are probably going to owe a compromise anyway. The bottom line is the quicker you take out your opponent, the less s/he can injure you. Attack is solid against attack, can cancel out a defend or maneuver, and dominates feint. You’re more likely to reduce the opponent’s disposition with an offensive strategy than you are to maintain (nevermind increase) disposition with a defensive strategy. That being said, the offensive strategy is likely going to result in less of a compromise than a defensive strategy.

In addition to what Michael said above; Beliefs, Goals, Instincts, Traits, earning checks for the players’ turn, and earning tests for skills and abilities all create context for a player’s choices when engaged in a conflict.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. When I brought up context, I meant battlefield context. Yes, beliefs/goals/instincts are an important factor, but on the battlefield, environment and tide are just as important (if not more important factors).

Okay. I would say that it should translate into every action, absent some compelling reason not to. The game is played on an action by action basis.

Maybe we just have different definitions of heroism. For me, it’s about strategy as much as ethics.

Perhaps in some games (or in real life?) but it seems Mouse Guard Conflict has different design goals. Terrain barely factors into it - I suppose you could argue the terrain offers you Gear +1D to your dispo or to certain advantages (a tipped-over wagon, or a grassed-over pathway for Defend), but it’s not really about marshalling tactical advantages. When we play, most of those details are narrated on the fly, made up by whoever’s acting (e.g. “For my Maneuver, I leap up onto a mossed-over log behind the snake and run along it, screaming to distract him!”)

For that, you might have a look at BE’s Firefight (where terrain and cover is much more important).

Let’s say you’re fighting a Milk Snake, whose Coils give it +1s to Attack. Involved in the three-mouse party is Wyle, a Guardmouse with a Bow and a Sword, Nature 5 and Fighting 3 (this isn’t atypical). By scripting Attack and using the sword, he rolls 6 dice (3, +1 sword, +2 help). With a bow Maneuver he’d roll 9 dice! (5, +2 bow, +2 help)

Assume the snake is hungry and trying to eat the mice (its intent is to kill). If Wyle Attacks, the snake will lose 3 dispo (on average) and the mice 4.5 (7d/2 + 1s), and the combat leaps towards its conclusion - a win for the snake and dead mice. Even if the patrol is made up of three badasses with halberds and Fighter 5, they’re attacking with 7D+1s, which is the same as the snake. This strategy leads to a toss-up between total mission failure as they spend the next few weeks fighting frostbite and starvation as they crawl back home (left for dead, p. 131), and immediate death.

If Wyle Maneuvers, on the other hand, the mice will most likely win without losing any dispo (because Maneuver vs. Attack is a versus test and Wyle has the edge), and going into the next round with an advantage (e.g. +2D to next action). (If they squeeze some traits, they might even manage to eliminate Coils, which is huge.)

So it looks like a nice script for fighting a milk snake is Bow-Maneuver, have the toughest guy Attack with a Halberd or Axe, and then follow up with a Shield Defend to try to reduce the eventual compromise. This is really worth fighting for, hard, because even a half-dispo compromise will wind up getting one of the mice killed before the snake is driven off.

I’ll grant you that the way teamwork changes as the team grows is a bit odd. If there are four of you, it may be tempting to want to have the frail Loremouse sit out the combat; I’m not sure how that works when it comes up. (Our groups were either all invested in combat, or some folks weren’t present and their participation wasn’t an option for the patrol.)

The worst case I can think of is when a single badass is accompanied by a total newb, whom he outclasses in every respect. The +1D to dispo and help won’t outweigh the newb’s stat deficiencies, so the badass would most likely be better off scripting alone. But then, that makes a kind of sense. If you’re going into combat, would you like to be assisted by a total incompetent? It might not make a difference, if you don’t give a crap about him and he’s not so bad he’s going to hit you with friendly fire. But if you do care about him, then it’s going to hurt your performance as you protect his downy brown ass! (And in certain situations, having him sit out and cower would be appropriate, such as if he’s an NPC you’re escorting.)

The other place that your concerns might materialize in actual play is in other types of Conflict, where you can’t use Nature (which is often higher than skills) for any of the actions. In particular, Argument uses Persuader for pretty much everything, so scripting variety is less likely to be driven by skill differences. But even so, Maneuver may still be tempting if the other side has some dangerous traits you want to eliminate. Also, you only script for one exchange at a time.

We tended to use one-roll resolution for arguments, so I can’t say what actually happens. Maybe you could ask other groups.

PB, I don’t see this discussion going anywhere until you’ve gotten a few conflicts under your belt. I never disagreed that attacking wasn’t the optimal strategy, I just said that this was by design. When I GM the opposition in a conflict, most of my actions are attack (or maneuvers setting up attacks), but that doean’t mean I haven’t pulled off a couple key defends or devastating feints in my time. There are enough considerations that go into choosing conflict actions that they’ve yet to become stale or predictable for me.

Battlefield context is created by the sides’ disposition scores and the actions chosen. If you want your mouse to hide from a predator in a log, then you choose defend and describe your character taking cover in that fashion. The dice determine the effectiveness of the tactic. The other players and the GM will build on each other’s descriptions as the conflict progresses, but it’s the rules and the rolls that establish the kind of context you’re referencing.