Very satisfying Conflict/Compromise - but some doubts

First of, Ahem;
I run a game for my group, using the Mouse Guard rules in a D&D-esque setting (with some Hacks on Nature and Magic). We only recently switched into MG because after a while, we realized that the tactical gaming aspect of D&D was all fun and good, but we really were more interested in the story and characters. MG allowed us to progress through key scenes that ‘matters’ much quicker, and rewarded good storytelling instead of good strategies - even the most tactical-minded of my group was convinced that MG was the way for us to go. So here we are!

To sum it up, the story arc was coming to a close after the campaign’s “Original Three Members” came together again (We rotate the team rosters around, because we have quite a large group and hectic time table). I saw this opportunity as golden, and their mission was to hunt down an Illithid - a monstrous humanoid with strange powers and octopus-like head whom they have crossed paths with multiple times, all of which the Illithid would do all kinds of nasty things to them. This was their moment to dish it all back.

After some Pathfinding and Scouting around, the GM’s turn comes to a climax with a Fight! Conflict with the Illithid to subdue and capture it, alive. Tensions were high.
The players’ had Fighter 3 to 5, some of them were both Injured and Sick, while the Illithid was running around, throwing psychic brain crush with it’s Nature 9. The overwhelming odds made everything better as players depleted their resources, traits, persona and fate to squeeze out ever dice they could get. Outnumbered, and strokes of bad luck brought the Illithid to disposition 0, having brought the first players’ team to 0, and the other one to a 1.

Everyone cheered when I announced they had won the conflict, but then quite shocked (they’re new) that I could ask for Major Compromises. I decided that first, the Illithid would die right off. They loose any information they may have been able to gain from it - which was critical enough. I almost stopped there, but I went further. I reasoned that this guy was your nemesis, the big boss. I wanted the Illithid to make a mark on the players, even after death.

So the final verdict was, the party’s Wizard/Fighter lost his ability to cast spells, and the sharp-eyed ranger went blind. During the conflict, they both had been brain crushed - as in, bled through their ears and eyes and writhed in agony for a while.

The compromises were very harsh, I thought, but the players seem very satisfied with the results. They now have scars that remind them of a terrible enemy they bested - apparently, to them, it also felt like a trophy.

Was the magic lost and blindness too harsh? Was the death of the Illithid, instead of it’s capture, enough to work for a Major Compromise? Or was this all just golden, and all the more reasons we should continue playing with Mouse Guard rules.
I don’t think we will turn back on the results, but I just wanted to hear some thoughts on my call for how Compromises work. Cheers.

Remember that compromise is a negotiation, not GM Fiat. And yes, two different bad outcomes is too much, even for a major compromise.

Also, if the PCs were in two teams, each team is supposed to have a different intent.

Yeah, the two big results were negotiated. I first proposed some reduction on a a skill or two, but the two players who seemed to have been hit the hardest thought the dramatic impact was lacking. After that, we settled with the lost of magic and the blindness. In a way, the wizard said this could build up to a whole chain of events to restore his powers, while the ranger just entertained the thought of playing a character struggling to cope with his disability, which ruins much of his professional skills. Again, these were worked out with the players - including me warning them that this is very harsh, mechanic wise (especially in the case of the wizard)

And, no, I didn’t realize two teams had to have different intents. Is that somewhere in the conflict section of the rules?

I think that is all you need to consider. Good job!

The rules for conflict goals are on Page 102.

OK, no problem then.

And, no, I didn’t realize two teams had to have different intents. Is that somewhere in the conflict section of the rules?

Pretty damn sure, but I might be wrong. I’ll let someone else look up the specific page reference.

Matt

Sounds like an awesome ending to an epic enemy. It also sounds like you play with some mature players. Kudos.

The key line of rules is on page 102:

“Each team picks a short-term or immediate goal they wish to accomplish as a result of this conflict.”

Sounds like an awesome ending to an epic enemy. It also sounds like you play with some mature players. Kudos. 

Thanks!
We’ve been playing for a year or two, and we know what each other wants mostly. Great group it is!

“Each team picks a short-term or immediate goal they wish to accomplish as a result of this conflict.”

Didn’t realize this meant they had to pick different goals.

If so, how do you handle a large team who wants the same thing, say 5 or 6? Don’t the rules say large chunks must be divided into teams of 2 or 3?

You’re obviously making it work, but the game is not designed to be played with more than 4 players.

The reason it’s important to have different goals is because otherwise it messes with what it means for a team to reach 0 dispo: if you reach 0, you do not get your goal, period. (Though obviously you may get close to it with a compromise.) So if two teams have the same goal, then one team getting knocked to 0 loses a lot of its punch.

I’d say it’s up to you to frame the fictional situations so that there are always at least two things at stake for the PCs to deal with: the Illithid is also opening a portal to the underworld or something. So they not only have to capture it, they have to disrupt the ritual. Or whatever.

Matt

I’d say it’s up to you to frame the fictional situations so that there are always at least two things at stake for the PCs to deal with: the Illithid is also opening a portal to the underworld or something. So they not only have to capture it, they have to disrupt the ritual. Or whatever.

Sounds like the way to go, should make scenes more exciting that way. Guess I’ll have to see how it’ll work out when the next Conflict comes up in a session or two.

Thanks!

Glad to be of service. Remember that the different goals all need to be things that are not mutually exclusive: so if (to continue my earlier hypothetical) they kill the Mind Flayer, it could still get the portal open with its last breath or whatever.

Matt

Wish I had a gaming group like yours. In fact, I’d settle for simply having a gaming group.
sigh…:stuck_out_tongue:

How did your group beat a Mindflayer? Wouldn’t they be much higher on the natural order scale?

A Mindflayer was about the size of a human, so I assumed that while they were really powerful, they weren’t beyond any skilled human to kill.

I would save ‘higher natural order’ for things like big dragons and balrogs.