Hi, I have a question about running a Journey conflict. What skills are appropriate for the Defend and Manouver actions.
In the session I ran yesterday I allowed Harvester & Survivalist for Defend, Scout and Survivalist for Manouver. Even then with only two players Spring managed to gain complete victory. I represented this by making the characters Tired and adding a twist in the form of Weasles.
Hi KonZill,
According to page 112, the skills for Defend and Maneuver in a journey conflict are Survivalist and Weather Watcher. What was each side’s goal in this conflict?
Thanks for the info I missed that bit. It’s a pity the conflict tables couldn’t just say this instead of ‘See descr’.
The mice where searching for Martin who had set out alone to get his rocking chair. The weather was just trying to delay them and make them tired.
Thanks. I don’t think introducing the weasels was appropriate given the conflict goals. Furthermore, if all the spring weather was going to do was delay them from finding Martin, if it didn’t have an agenda of its own, a standard mission obstacle might have been better. Either introducing a twist (ambushed by weasels) or hitting them with a condition (you catch up to Martin, but you’re tired), would have been well within the rules if they had failed that test.
I made it a conflict because the players had originally refused to help Martin. They thought they had convinced him not to go and left it at that. I figured that chasing after him, beyond the scent boarder no less should be a significant challenge. And the crux of the problem being that they have taken much longer to get to their destination then they planned.
One interesting thing that happened early on is that the weather managed to diss-arm the players. They happened to have obtained a map before leaving so I ruled that it was snatched away by a gust of wind. Seeing as we are outside ofth territories Weasels seem to be the most logical complication to introduce.
I can see why you wanted to make it a full conflict, but “you’re all tired” is still not a good Conflict goal. “You fail to catch up to Martin before the weasels do” would be much better, and would allow the introduction of the weasels more organically. Furthermore, some great compromise possibilities arise from that one: imagine the PCs arriving just in time to have a big fight with the weasels to prevent Martin’s capture.
Matt
How was this handled in play? Was convincing Martin not to venture outside of the territories a mission obstacle? Did the players test to persuade him and fail? What did they intend to do after they refused to help him?
We are talking about the Deliver the Mail Mission that appears in the book. It was an argument conflict presented exactly as the mission suggested with Martin trying to convince the guards to help him and loosing. Afterwards neither of the players (my sons who are eight and ten respectably) expressed any interest in helping him during the players turn. One of them couldn’t even think of anything to use his free check on during the players turn.
“You fail to catch up to Martin before the weasels do” would be much better, and would allow the introduction of the weasels more organically.
There is nothing in the game that requires twists to be organic. Indeed the animal twists in the sample missions are no different to the one I introduced. Look at the Grain Peddler mission, there is no hint of a snake at all until you fail a scout test. Ditto for Deliver the mail where a Raven is just dropped in on a failed path finding test. Neither mission contains any foreshadowing that snakes or ravens might be an issue before they are introduced.
In this case the conflict was framed as a search and rescue mission. The guard didn’t know of any specific threat, just that a lone mouse has ventured out beyond the scent boarder and his family is worried about him. Feeling guilty they set off to find him before anything bad happens to him.
My point is that conflict goals need to be interesting and really take the story in a different direction if the enemy / NPC / GM side gets what it wants.
If spring got a complete victory, why was there a twist? Spring got its stakes without compromise. There’s no need for a twist. Twists are for failed tests.
Weasels might be the next obstacle they come upon. But the weasels aren’t the real issue here.
Thanks, I’m seeing it now. What Goals did your sons write for their characters, or where they using the sample guardmice?
I have no idea guy 
Thanks, I’m seeing it now. What Goals did your sons write for their characters, or where they using the sample guardmice?
They where using slightly modified, rad Re-named versions of existing mice. One was based on Nathanial and had an I will deliver the mail goal. The other was a modified version of Liam and had an I will prove that I’m a valuable guard mouse goal.