In my first game of Mouse Guard, we encountered this situation.
Fennel, one of the guard mice, had a goal to finish the mission in record time, so the Ob 4 Pathfinder test became an Ob 5 (find a short cut). He failed. As a condition, Fennel got Angry at himself for getting the patrol lost. I let Angus, another guard mouse, in the players turn, try to remove Fennel’s Angry Condition as one of his (Angus’) player actions.
The rules clearly say you can’t get help with Will tests. Getting rid of your anger is an Ob 2 test. Although, in this case, I really felt that it made sense that a calm reflective mouse could help talk down the firebrand mouse from his anger. So I don’t feel too bad about it, though I can see some potential balance issues down the line. We made it a bit different, made it a Persuader vs. Will test… not sure if that made sense though. Still it was fun.
I’m wondering about the balance issues of the group by-passing the ob 2 Wil test, and making Wil less important.
The rest of the actual play account can be found here at The Tavern.
thats awesome! i never thought of anything like that kudos to you then:D
Ob 2 Will tests are vital for Will advancement. They’re set at Ob 2 for a reason.
Luke, thanks for the reply.
What is the best way to handle Player 1 from trying to remove Angry Condition from Player 2?
Roleplay their exchange then the player with the Angry condition character rolls.
I don’t understand the question, really. Perhaps I’m not the best one to ask. I just point to the rule book and say, “It’s an Ob 2 Will test for him. You can’t make the test for him.”
We did have a player have his character make sedatives for angry characters in our of games, though. +1D for tools/materials.
Have Player 2 make an Ob 2 Will test.
You might consider Player 1 trying to cheer up his friend what happens in the fiction to give Player 2 a chance to overcome his or her anger, but really, it’s up to Player 2 to succeed at that test.
Edit: In other words, what Rafe said.
Oh wait. Duh! Player 1 gives Player 2 a check. Player 1 then roleplays his interaction with Player 2. Then Player 2 has a nice neat justification for testing to drop his Angry condition.
Can’t believe I didn’t see that! He doesn’t make the check, it’s up the Angry mouse to overcome his emotions, but he provides him the means to do so.
Handing over checks based on roleplay justification. I’ve never considered thinking of them in that manner. Very nifty.