Why only 3 players per team in a conflict?


Why is the max limit 3 players per team in a conflict? If my playing group consists of 5 players, why cant they all form one team and alternate taking turns as oppose to a team of 2 and a team of 3? is it just flavour or do the mechanics break if its more than 3 players?



There really is a 6 player limit, not 3.

But the practical is 3-4 players. Each member of a team must take an action each round if possible, and any mouse that doesn’t act in turn X has to do so in turn X+1, so at 4, someone is sitting out every turn, and at 7 someone has to miss two turns… which becomes very unsatisfying.

My players have told me that they find the MG Conflict system to be very satisfying, since effectively “the team” goes every volley, and they effectively all have a chance to contribute (through helper dice). Just because you shift the spotlight to a different character on each volley doesn’t mean that everyone else is sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

The rules tell you how to handle this. There’s not a limit of 3 players to a team, but rather 3 actions per exchange. Check p. 113, “Multiple Characters in a Team”. Personally, I like that limit, since it’s small enough to allow both teams to reconsider their actions for the next exchange, and allows choosing those actions to happen fairly quickly.

Three player teams are simply the most fun. If you have more than three players, form multiple teams.

No mouse stands still during a Conflict. You continue describing what you are doing in every moment and, if you can, try to help your fellow patrol members. But just one player make tests, so have three members in each team allows all players have the opportunity to roll the dice.

… but there is no mechanical reason why I couldn’t run with one team of 5 players? I know there has to be 3 actions per exchange but if the exchanges are shared between 5 as oppose to 3 it can still work? The other PCs could add helping dice etc?

If you run with a team of 5 players, 3 of them will act in the first 3-action exchange, the other two will help in the following 3-action exchange, along with one of the others who acted in the initial exchange. Once all players have had one turn, you can switch up the order that everyone goes in, as long as no one player acts twice in a row. Again, read “Multiple Characters in a Team” on p. 113.

The rules are certainly flexible in this regard, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you should heed the advice received in this thread.
Optimal play has three players on a team. For a five-player group, create deeper, more complicated conflicts that require two or three teams to tackle two or three goals.

Seems like that will just make conflicts last longer.

Players who aren’t rolling dice feel left out in combat. I ran a more than 4 month MG campaign with 6p… they avoided 4-6p teams like the plague.

I do agree, but the GM requiring real narration before allowing the helping die goes a long way to counter this. In one game we were up against weasels and my helping actions were things like overturning a table full of crockery and throwing dishware. The helping actions were great fun.

Longer than what? Them’s the rules. Plus, if everyone’s engaged and having fun, longer is likely better. (Insert dirty joke here) Bear in mind that a long Conflict in MG is not like a long combat in D&D, where players are so bored that they’re attacking the darkness and asking where the Cheetos are. :wink:

What I was describing was assuming a single team of 5 players. Breaking up into multiple player teams generally takes longer to run than a Conflict with only one player team vs. one GM team, given the additional overhead of having to do a three-way compare against actions vs. the standard two-way comparison.

If you’re running MG for a big group of players who are likely to break up into two or more teams in Conflicts, something to consider is breaking their opponents up into a matching number of teams, each with their own separate goals. This prevents a three-way game of rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock.

Thats the point I was trying to put across. I know I can use multiple players in a team and I know I can split the teams up to have deeper, multi goal conflicts but it reads like it takes a lot longer and is more complicated than simply one team against another.

I was trying to find out if I was missing something mechanically that meant I couldn’t have more than three per team as oppose to shouldnt have more than 3 per team. From the advice presented here, it looks like I could have more than 3 but probably shouldn’t.

Its all cool and I really appreciate the advice, I’m just trying to get it all clear in my head before I try to run a game.



It seems like it would work a lot better with multiple teams. When you have one team, it’s like taking the action and stretching it thin over entire conflict. Sure, other mice can help, but they can’t do much other than toss a dice and role play their help. When you split the teams it makes everyone more busy and more intense action is going on. It also seems more realistic.

Conflicts do get long and I have hear people complain about how slow the conflict was going. Multiple teams quickens the pace and makes it feel that a lot more is being done. Also, the three-way compare against actions is fun. It adds a really interesting dynamic to the conflicts. Also it is fun to have 3 different sets of goals in the conflict. The compromises are really fun to work out. That’s my opinion, but I do admit that I haven’t had a lot of experience with large patrols.

I meant having one big team would make it last longer,

Edit: and reduce everyone’s fun at the same time.

That matches my experience, but I’ll add that it also tends to drive people to the minimum narration possible to give over the help die. Which is also bad.