Mouse vs. Beaver Conflict and Nature Questions

[AtomicReaction]

Hi all. Apologies if there has already been a lot of threads about this, but I couldn’t find anything to fit my specific question.

I’m a little bit confused about how the conflict rules are supposed to work with animals that do not have natures which fit the conflict at hand. I have an example from a session that I ran yesterday.

I was running a mission from the supplemental box set rules. It has the mice trying to stop a beaver dam from flooding Longpine. The party got to the dam, scared the beavers off temporarily using some good Loremouse roles, and then set to work breaking up the dam. I used a conflict to have them try to pull it down, and they ended up losing. In the compromise, they got a small hole in the dam, which the beavers would have to patch when they returned.

After rolling over to a player turn, they decided to spend some checks on setting up an ambush for the big mom beaver when she returned. They set up next to the area the beaver had been harvesting from, and then spent a check initiating a Fight Animal conflict with the beaver.

This is the part that threw me. How do I handle the fight with the beaver? It’s nature only allows it to engage in “Gnawing, Swimming, Building, and Tunneling”. Would the correct play here been to not allow a Fight Animal conflict since fighting isn’t really in the beaver’s nature? Should Gnawing have been used as the attack skill? I assumed Gnawing was in the context of biting trees, since allowing it to use it for Gnawing on mice seemed a little gamey.

In the end, I ran it as a kind of asymmetrical conflict. The guard mice were trying to hurt the beaver badly enough that it would leave the area, and the beaver was trying to get the sapling it needed to patch the hole and make it back to the water. This seemed strange too, since the guard was using Fight Animal, but the beaver was rolling on entirely different objectives. It was also weird when I was trying to get the beaver to push through them and get back to the water, since none of it’s nature really matches that sort of fleeing from danger. It’s out of water, so there’s no real way to use Swimming, and Tunneling/Building don’t seem to fit much either.

TLDR: I’m looking for help in figuring out how to frame the narrative around conflicts with animals, where the animals aren’t suited for the conflict at hand due to previous narrative positioning. Thanks for any help, and any pointers on rules I got wrong are appreciated as well!

[kendesign (Prevail)]

@AtomicReaction

After rolling over to a player turn, they decided to spend some checks on setting up an ambush for the big mom beaver when she returned. They set up next to the area the beaver had been harvesting from, and then spent a check initiating a Fight Animal conflict with the beaver.

This is the part that threw me. How do I handle the fight with the beaver? It’s nature only allows it to engage in “Gnawing, Swimming, Building, and Tunneling”. Would the correct play here been to not allow a Fight Animal conflict since fighting isn’t really in the beaver’s nature? Should Gnawing have been used as the attack skill? I assumed Gnawing was in the context of biting trees, since allowing it to use it for Gnawing on mice seemed a little gamey.

The first portion of my answer deals with inherent self-defense. Mice by Nature alone do not have a descriptor as fighters. In fact, as feral, wild, natural creatures, they are but prey to predators. However, when a player wants to make an assault against a foe, yet doesn’t have Fighter, they may choose to employ Nature or attempt Beginner’s Luck.

In similar sense, the animal without a descriptor that seems ‘fighty’ or otherwise aggressive, may still use Nature to reflect inherent self-defense. No animal is required to be defenseless simply for lack of a Nature descriptor. It wouldn’t be within the spirit of the game to play everything exclusively by the text; the Nature descriptors are not always perfect and are not intended as comprehensive representations of a creature.

In the end, I ran it as a kind of asymmetrical conflict. The guard mice were trying to hurt the beaver badly enough that it would leave the area, and the beaver was trying to get the sapling it needed to patch the hole and make it back to the water. This seemed strange too, since the guard was using Fight Animal, but the beaver was rolling on entirely different objectives. It was also weird when I was trying to get the beaver to push through them and get back to the water, since none of it’s nature really matches that sort of fleeing from danger. It’s out of water, so there’s no real way to use Swimming, and Tunneling/Building don’t seem to fit much either.

And in this portion of my answer, I’ll commend the choice to develop an asymmetric encounter. The beaver is just trying to be a beaver! That’s great! And the mice are totally failing to see the true path to victory over a beaver; that’s pretty great too. That sort of asymmetric conflict is an excellent method for developing compromises with twisty conclusions.

The earlier Loremouse success is being forgotten or set aside in favor of decisive aggression. It is an ironic moment when the patrol realizes they have the skills to interact more effectively, but instead chose an ineffective method.

TLDR: I’m looking for help in figuring out how to frame the narrative around conflicts with animals, where the animals aren’t suited for the conflict at hand due to previous narrative positioning. Thanks for any help, and any pointers on rules I got wrong are appreciated as well!

Animals might not have an aggressive descriptor, and might not seem the type to confront; however, an animal cornered and unable to escape will make a defense with violence of action. Those descriptors are not comprehensive or exhaustive reflections of the natural animal.

Showing the lack of balance and forethought through asymmetric Conflicts and Compromises brings a more realistic environment to life around the characters.

[AtomicReaction]

Thank you very much for the answer! That all makes a lot of sense.

One last thing and then I should be good to go. Seeing as you mentioned the mice having to use Beginner’s Luck if they don’t have Fighter, should I be doing the same thing for the beaver if something it is trying to do is outside of its nature? To clarify, if the beaver decided to stand its ground and whack one of those pesky mice with its tail, should I be halving the nature score for the beaver’s roll to emphasize that this isn’t something it would do naturally?

[noclue]

Not sure if things have changed in 2nd Ed. but Luke’s said before that animals do not act outside their nature. So, there would be no need for Beginner’s Luck. My Beaver would just be trying to get to water and swim away. Now since beavers are two steps up the Natural Order from mice, a frightened beaver running amok is going to be quite the hazard even if it isn’t actually fighting.

[AtomicReaction]

Excellent. Thanks for the help kendesign and noclue! I appreciate the assistance and explanation.

[kendesign (Prevail)]

@AtomicReaction

Seeing as you mentioned the mice having to use Beginner’s Luck if they don’t have Fighter, should I be doing the same thing for the beaver if something it is trying to do is outside of its nature? To clarify, if the beaver decided to stand its ground and whack one of those pesky mice with its tail, should I be halving the nature score for the beaver’s roll to emphasize that this isn’t something it would do naturally?

I don’t suggest that. Just have the animal act with Nature rating (pg 90 has a short mention about this).

I do suggest taxing an animal when acting far outside of Nature descriptors; if the animal will become a recurring NPC in another season, it might be nice for players to see they’ve driven this opposing force into expending a resource [Nature] trying to outcompete the patrol mates.

So a bit of self-defense I’d allow within Nature without Tax. However, a non-predatory animal seeking to kill mice even in self-defense, I might tax an animal doing that–it’s beginning to act unnaturally. Alternately, a predatory animal like snake, owl, fox, turning around to offer Argument, Negotiation is fairly strange and merits Tax.

[noclue]

I guess. It all seems like a rather pointless complication and I’m not sure the point. I’m interested in the mice and their struggles with their human and mouse natures over the course of the campaign. Taxing nature in an animal that’s just there to provide opposition for the patrol is just a distraction when I should be focusing on the characters’ BIGs. What’s the gain from allowing animals to act outside their nature and then taxing them if they really really act outside there nature?

On another note, I find it fascinating how one seemingly minor change, allowing animals to act against their natures, leads to all sorts of other considerations. Beginners luck, tax. I’m sure other knock on effects will arise. What happens if nature goes to zero?

[kendesign (Prevail)]

@noclue

… It all seems like a rather pointless complication and I’m not sure the point. I’m interested in the mice and their struggles with their human and mouse natures over the course of the campaign. Taxing nature in an animal that’s just there to provide opposition for the patrol is just a distraction when I should be focusing on the characters’ BIGs. What’s the gain from allowing animals to act outside their nature and then taxing them if they really really act outside there nature?

On another note, I find it fascinating how one seemingly minor change, allowing animals to act against their natures, leads to all sorts of other considerations. Beginners luck, tax. I’m sure other knock on effects will arise. What happens if nature goes to zero?

right, and a good observation on style. I only do this when it is truly going to be a recurring NPC figure which the players would encounter regularly; one such example was a hare who worked w/ Grasslake militia and was convinced to recruit under the Guard. I wasn’t going to offer any skills, but that and a few other hares had Wises and Traits which players were aware of. I wouldn’t bother on animals which are just making a cameo appearance.

Over a small number of sessions working with that hare, they were dealing with trait-related mannerisms, conditions, and the hare’s nature being taxed. In part, this was a player resource; since, they could call on the hare’s Nature (running) but also knew a large hunt of a fox taxed that Nature resource by their request for the hare to participate in a hunt against a hare predator. It required some balance; because, they felt some tenderness for this NPC, and didn’t want to cause undue harm or stress, yet also wanted to fulfill a hunt that would have been nearly impossible with mounts.

I guess, I’d make sure that an animal NPC taxed to 0 was going to disappear (die) at the end of the session to reflect the utmost loss of the resource. However, even using a recurring NPC, I don’t want that character omnipresent. I’d include for the appropriate portions of a session only. This gives time for the animal to have some sort of rest which might be restorative for Nature.