Page 102 says, “Each team picks a short-term or immediate goal they wish to accomplish as a result of this conflict.” Does this mean that if one side of a conflict has two teams (for instance, if a four mouse patrol split into two teams of two) that they each have a separate goal, or is it one goal per side?
If the teams on a side can have multiple goals, what happens if the goals are mutually exclusive? For instance, in the Animal twist in “Delivering the Mail” if one team decides on the goal “Capture the Raven” and the other team decides on the goal “Drive the Raven off”, what would the outcome be if the mice won?
Normally one team will have lost more disposition that the other and so the level of compromise is different. I find that working through the standard process often provides an interesting result.
Though I think Luke may be going a bit Nietsche on you, asking you to determine what “side” means in the best interests of your own game, a good definition for a “side” would be a team or group of teams with allied or complementary goals.
Teams can have different goals, but it’s important to remember that a patrol split into 2 or even 3 teams – a team of one, two and two – is still a patrol. That means they still work together to accomplish their tasks, whether or not they’re on the same team. A good parallel is choosing your guardmouse’s Goal for the session. As per the rules as written, none of your players can put “Deliver the mail.” However, one can say “Ensure the mail is delivered undamaged” while another writes “Do what is necessary to ensure the mail arrives to its destination as quickly as possible.” They’re similar, and all involve the mail, but they complement one another, also. In my opinion, teams in conflicts should do likewise in terms of their goals.
Your example of mutually exclusive goals involving the raven twist is a good one. I’d like to see your example come out in play! I wonder if anyone has had such a situation yet.
Yes, that’s definitely helpful to keep in mind. The players can always make use of table chatter to coordinate their Goals. If they choose to act in opposition to one another, well, then they suffer the concurrent fallout.
Having had my players (for story/goal reasons) split up against a certain fox, who is rapidly becoming a recurrent NPC…
Steve’s intent was to drive him off; Steph and Jerry to cow him into service. The Fox’s was to drive these pesky and embarrassing mice away, and eat the new (NPC) mouse cowering over yonder… (Steve’s Saxon has a belt made from whiskers of this particular fox…)
The Fox Lost. Steve then capitulated, since he had less dispo than the other team.
The price they paid the fox was letting him eat the rebels they were chasing.
My whole party has Loremouse. It’s like running Doolittle Family Guard…
Definitely! I think I was getting hung up by thinking of this as the default, where teams would always be making goals independently and then butting heads without intending it. Good table chatter allows for either situation and the appropriate dramas that come along with them.
So Mouse Guards let the fox eat the mice? Man, I hope that hit some hard RP within the group in the form of beliefs or what have you. I could see a Mouse becoming really disillusioned with being a Guard. “Sure, they were rebels, but they were still mice!”