I ran my first session of MG today (about which more when I have more time), and I have a question about recovering from conditions. One of the characters, a tenderpaw, took a SERIOUS BEATING: he ended his first session Angry, Injured, and Sick. His mentor is chock-full of points in Healer. Can she use her own checks for tests to fix his Injured and Sick, or does he spend his own check for her to roll since it’s his condition? (And I guess as a corollary to that, for any roll that he spends the check for, does she still get the P/F mark?)
Looking ahead to our next session: how do you model a challenge repeating itself? If for instance a Healer has a small town of sick mice to attend to, it doesn’t make much sense or sound like any fun for her to roll a couple dozen Healer checks. Creating a higher Ob to match the magnitude of the task makes more sense, but that idea doesn’t feel right. My gut reaction is to make it a Conflict, with the enemy side being “everybody being hurt” and assigning a “Nature” based on the number of wounded, with a Goal something like “cripple and debilitate as much of the town as possible.”
Any suggestions? If that’s a good way to go, what kind of guidelines should I use for assigning a “Nature” to the enemy?
EDIT: I’m liking the Conflict method more and more. I think Healer for Attack and Feint (added to Will for Disposition), Baker/Cook/Nature(foraging) for Maneuver and Defense (to keep the mices’ energy up and keep the illness from overcoming them). Maybe not Nature, though, because a hot fresh-cooked meal should always do more than something like PBJ and an apple for keeping your morale up.
Just to be clear, is the mentor another player’s character?
First off, obstacles and challenges don’t repeat themselves. See “Fun Once! Let’s Not Do It Again” on page 90.
To treat the town, you wouldn’t have the player test over and over. You could use the general factors on page 231 to create an obstacle appropriate to the scope of the task, or use the conflict framework to create a healer conflict. Turning this into a full-blown conflict is a great idea, but the way to handle it in one roll would be to identify something that engages the character’s BIGs or relationships and frame the test around that.
A illness that threatens an entire settlement is interesting, but what’s more compelling is if this crisis threatens something important to the character. What if treating the town-wide sickness puts the player’s session goal in jeopardy, or forces him to act against his Instinct? What if the person most in need of the character’s help is his enemy, or if he risks losing a friend or family member if he fails the test? Regardless of which resolution method you use, you want to look at how to challenge the player with the situation.
Hmm, bad phrasing on my part. I was thinking specifically of “Fun Once” when I said it would be unfun nonsense to make check after check. I meant “it repeats” in the sense of “there’s a bunch of these sick people to fix” and from there, how do you avoid the unfun billion rolls?
Oooo, and I can see how to do that, too! You’re right, that adds fun new levels to that scene, if it comes about!
Thematically, at least. Condensing it to one roll because it threatens her BIG will take some thought.
Thanks for clarifying. Whichever character records the test for advancement is the one who spends the check. The ailing mouse may want the tests, but the mentor may have a better chance of succeeding. Also, they might have other things they want to do with their checks than spending them recovering or treating a patrol-mate. They’ll have fun working out this between them.
I would not, however, allow the ailing mouse to spend a check to recover from, say, injured, and then have the mentor spend a check to treat injured in the event the afflicted mouse fails. This would be in violation of the rule on page 126 regarding only testing once to recovery from a particular condition per Players’ Turn.
I think you’ve got this, but just in case, your three options are:
Single test with a high obstacle due to the scope
Extended conflict
Single test that challenges what’s important to the character.
I’d prefer either #2 or #3. (N.B. that the considerations for #3 make for excellent conflict goals and compromises for an extended conflict.) In a conflict, I’d use healer for attack and feint, and scientist or will for defend and maneuver. Disposition for the players’ side would be test healer + base will; for the GM’s side I’d use the rating of the current season, as per “Season Disposition” on page 104. Curing an epidemic would be most difficult in winter.
It expands on what actionsc an be used and allows for creating diseases, which basically an animal. This allows for diseases to vary from one another, by varying both their nature and bonuses for certain action, and also allows for the fact that certain diseases are harder to fight in summer then winter (for example, a bacteria which is spread via water and kills through fever would be much worse in the a dry summer, which would limit the access to water and increase the effects of fever, then winter, where other water sources are all around in the form of snow, and the cold would actually help treat it).
Also, further down the thread, it also has an example of a complex obstacle that could be used instead of a conflict.