I love everything about Mouse Guard RPG except playing it. I really want a simple, World of Dungeons-style AW-hack for MG. Or even something like The Warren, where the mice basically do the same thing, but with slight differences depending on background/specialty.
Someone needs to make this happen. Or maybe I just need to be the change I want to see in the world.
Be. The. Change.
Be. The. Change.
Have you seen Michtim?
Have you seen Michtim?
Paul Czege I hadn’t heard of it, but just looked at the DriveThru entry. Looks cute. Apart from the inclusion of magic, you could definitely do a MG story there. I think? MG is actually not very cute, now that I think about it. It has some grit to it.
Paul Czege I hadn’t heard of it, but just looked at the DriveThru entry. Looks cute. Apart from the inclusion of magic, you could definitely do a MG story there. I think? MG is actually not very cute, now that I think about it. It has some grit to it.
It definitely has its own vision. The way the character classes use the mood tokens differently seems like it would be a lot of fun. I like how culturally important hissing is.
It definitely has its own vision. The way the character classes use the mood tokens differently seems like it would be a lot of fun. I like how culturally important hissing is.
Do eeet!
Then hit me up to playtest it 😛
EDIT: Mouse Guard is super gritty… the only cute thing are the mice themselves. They live hard lives, and their fights are bloody as hell
Do eeet!
Then hit me up to playtest it 😛
EDIT: Mouse Guard is super gritty… the only cute thing are the mice themselves. They live hard lives, and their fights are bloody as hell
Surely someone has done PbtA Mouse Guard though, right? My Google skills are failing me.
Surely someone has done PbtA Mouse Guard though, right? My Google skills are failing me.
So, I’m gonna ask the stupid question here (for which I hope you won’t get mad)… Have you played it as is? What seems to be the problem with it?
So, I’m gonna ask the stupid question here (for which I hope you won’t get mad)… Have you played it as is? What seems to be the problem with it?
Eloy Cintron Yeah, I’ve played it a fair amount (Burning Wheel, too; probably 40 sessions between the two of them). It’s just a style of play I don’t favor anymore. I pulled it out for my DW group a couple of years ago and it landed with a really loud thud.
Eloy Cintron Yeah, I’ve played it a fair amount (Burning Wheel, too; probably 40 sessions between the two of them). It’s just a style of play I don’t favor anymore. I pulled it out for my DW group a couple of years ago and it landed with a really loud thud.
Like BW, too many inputs for the eventual output.
Like BW, too many inputs for the eventual output.
Gotcha. Second edition streamlined the character creation process by adding skill packages during character creation, but other than that, it’s basically the same game. I don’t know if I just grokked the BW system well, or what, but the complexity is not actually my issue with it. Mine is the GM/PC turn structure. I understand its reason to be, I understand how it’s tied to your resources, and I love the application of the concept in The One Ring game, but in MG, I still have difficulty with it.
Gotcha. Second edition streamlined the character creation process by adding skill packages during character creation, but other than that, it’s basically the same game. I don’t know if I just grokked the BW system well, or what, but the complexity is not actually my issue with it. Mine is the GM/PC turn structure. I understand its reason to be, I understand how it’s tied to your resources, and I love the application of the concept in The One Ring game, but in MG, I still have difficulty with it.
Having said that, no one has more love for Burning Wheel (and, by extension, MG) as a design effort than I do. It really speaks to that part of me that loves RPG theory, and Luke has a really singular voice that comes through. I just don’t think it’s very fun to play anymore.
Having said that, no one has more love for Burning Wheel (and, by extension, MG) as a design effort than I do. It really speaks to that part of me that loves RPG theory, and Luke has a really singular voice that comes through. I just don’t think it’s very fun to play anymore.
I also really love everything Mouse Guard but it is challenging to play per my experience. A PbtA iteration would be very welcome. I’ve been waiting for my physical copy of the Warren to really dig into it so I don’t know how close that gets to the mark in regards to something hackable.
I also really love everything Mouse Guard but it is challenging to play per my experience. A PbtA iteration would be very welcome. I’ve been waiting for my physical copy of the Warren to really dig into it so I don’t know how close that gets to the mark in regards to something hackable.
I really wish I had a better understanding of how people view “complexity” in RPG mechanics. I like MG, and I like that there’s a meaty interlocking system to it. To me it doesn’t seem especially complex, it seems on par with a lot of popular board games in terms of the number of moving parts and how they interact.
I really wish I had a better understanding of how people view “complexity” in RPG mechanics. I like MG, and I like that there’s a meaty interlocking system to it. To me it doesn’t seem especially complex, it seems on par with a lot of popular board games in terms of the number of moving parts and how they interact.
Dan Maruschak I think the truly complex part of BWHQ games is writing good Beliefs.
The mechanics of the subsystems are crunchy, yes. But they are just as crunchy as, say, Pathfinder’s.
So, not for those people looking for unobtrusive, rules lite systems.
Dan Maruschak I think the truly complex part of BWHQ games is writing good Beliefs.
The mechanics of the subsystems are crunchy, yes. But they are just as crunchy as, say, Pathfinder’s.
So, not for those people looking for unobtrusive, rules lite systems.
Couldn’t you just sub in mice and other furries for races in DW and call it good?
Couldn’t you just sub in mice and other furries for races in DW and call it good?
Dan Maruschak “Complexity” may not be the precise term for my issues with MG, but it’s close. For me, it’s more about getting to the outcome in the most direct, satisfying way. I don’t think Call of Cthulhu is particularly complex, either, but I do think other games get to that game’s desired outcome in ways that are more immediate and satisfying, by dropping the boring stuff and emphasizing the good stuff.
Dan Maruschak “Complexity” may not be the precise term for my issues with MG, but it’s close. For me, it’s more about getting to the outcome in the most direct, satisfying way. I don’t think Call of Cthulhu is particularly complex, either, but I do think other games get to that game’s desired outcome in ways that are more immediate and satisfying, by dropping the boring stuff and emphasizing the good stuff.
Eloy Cintron That may be true, I’ve never played any BWHQ games except MG. But in MG you rarely change Beliefs, so while it may factor into the “startup cost” I don’t think it would be a huge deal session-to-session.
Jason Cordova Can you say more about what you mean by “getting to the outcome in the most direct, satisfying way”? What do you mean by “the outcome”? What method are you using to separate “the boring stuff” from “the good stuff” in MG, and what goes in each category for you?
Eloy Cintron That may be true, I’ve never played any BWHQ games except MG. But in MG you rarely change Beliefs, so while it may factor into the “startup cost” I don’t think it would be a huge deal session-to-session.
Jason Cordova Can you say more about what you mean by “getting to the outcome in the most direct, satisfying way”? What do you mean by “the outcome”? What method are you using to separate “the boring stuff” from “the good stuff” in MG, and what goes in each category for you?
Dan Maruschak Agree with the startup cost vs session-to-session cost assessment.
As for Beliefs, MG’s are easier. They are basically a code of conduct. In BW, there are 3, and at least one must function like a MG Goal, driving play. Unlike MG, there’s no mission, so the Belief guides ALL play.
Dan Maruschak Agree with the startup cost vs session-to-session cost assessment.
As for Beliefs, MG’s are easier. They are basically a code of conduct. In BW, there are 3, and at least one must function like a MG Goal, driving play. Unlike MG, there’s no mission, so the Belief guides ALL play.
Oh, and I may have been dismissive of BW’s complexity. Range and Cover, Magic use during Fight! and the Healing/wound recovery mechanics are definitely more complex than Pathfinder… fortunately, some are optional, or don’t come that often into play.
Oh, and I may have been dismissive of BW’s complexity. Range and Cover, Magic use during Fight! and the Healing/wound recovery mechanics are definitely more complex than Pathfinder… fortunately, some are optional, or don’t come that often into play.
Dan Maruschak Sure. I view every roleplaying game as having a promised story outcome on an imaginary box or tin. Dungeon World promises a heroic-flavored dungeon crawl, in the spirit of old D&D. Call of Cthulhu promises an investigation game steeped in the world created by Lovecraft and his successors. Mouse Guard promises you the story of mice rangers in a low-fantasy world, a la the comic books. When I play a game, I’m always thinking about whether a particular mechanic is helping the table get to that story outcome in the most efficient way. A lot of games have rules and procedures that, while perhaps not particularly offensive or complex, and are maybe even fun (the Duel of Wits in BW, for example), are not doing much to service the story outcome, and so I ask the question, “What is the point of doing this?”
Obviously, “good stuff” and “boring stuff” is entirely subjective. Luke Crane is pretty open about the fact that he likes for his games to feel like “games,” which I take to mean he wants them to have a board game-like quality, and that engaging those meaty mechanics is part of what he’s going for. I just don’t think it’s what I’m going for, and that’s ok. Stuff like Pathfinder or 4E is no different, right? Some people really love the mechanical progression of a PF character, or the board game-like quality of 4E. My personal feeling is a lot of those rules aren’t serving the story very well.
Dan Maruschak Sure. I view every roleplaying game as having a promised story outcome on an imaginary box or tin. Dungeon World promises a heroic-flavored dungeon crawl, in the spirit of old D&D. Call of Cthulhu promises an investigation game steeped in the world created by Lovecraft and his successors. Mouse Guard promises you the story of mice rangers in a low-fantasy world, a la the comic books. When I play a game, I’m always thinking about whether a particular mechanic is helping the table get to that story outcome in the most efficient way. A lot of games have rules and procedures that, while perhaps not particularly offensive or complex, and are maybe even fun (the Duel of Wits in BW, for example), are not doing much to service the story outcome, and so I ask the question, “What is the point of doing this?”
Obviously, “good stuff” and “boring stuff” is entirely subjective. Luke Crane is pretty open about the fact that he likes for his games to feel like “games,” which I take to mean he wants them to have a board game-like quality, and that engaging those meaty mechanics is part of what he’s going for. I just don’t think it’s what I’m going for, and that’s ok. Stuff like Pathfinder or 4E is no different, right? Some people really love the mechanical progression of a PF character, or the board game-like quality of 4E. My personal feeling is a lot of those rules aren’t serving the story very well.
And again, to emphasize, I have a lot of affection for BW and MG. But it’s an affection separated from a desire to actually play them.
And again, to emphasize, I have a lot of affection for BW and MG. But it’s an affection separated from a desire to actually play them.
Jason Cordova So what is the “story outcome” of “mice rangers in a low-fantasy world”? I’m not following what this is or how this lens lets you identify what parts of a game are supporting/not-supporting it, or how you’re judging the efficiency..
It seems like you’re sort of bouncing back and forth between talking about something entirely subjective vs. something that’s extracted or inferred from the source via some analytic process. If it’s just your preference, why talk about things like “story outcomes” and “efficiency”? Or if there’s really something there, why back off to it being entirely subjective? My take on Mouse Guard is that the parts are very important to delivering the experience, e.g. the difficulty of the skill-rolls and the importance of judging how hard to push to succeed at at given task helps reinforce the grittiness of the situation and situate the mice as small players in a big, unsympathetic world.
Jason Cordova So what is the “story outcome” of “mice rangers in a low-fantasy world”? I’m not following what this is or how this lens lets you identify what parts of a game are supporting/not-supporting it, or how you’re judging the efficiency..
It seems like you’re sort of bouncing back and forth between talking about something entirely subjective vs. something that’s extracted or inferred from the source via some analytic process. If it’s just your preference, why talk about things like “story outcomes” and “efficiency”? Or if there’s really something there, why back off to it being entirely subjective? My take on Mouse Guard is that the parts are very important to delivering the experience, e.g. the difficulty of the skill-rolls and the importance of judging how hard to push to succeed at at given task helps reinforce the grittiness of the situation and situate the mice as small players in a big, unsympathetic world.
.
.
Because I think you have to account for both? The procedures I find to be overly long and unhelpful in Mouse Guard and BW may very well be what people find fun about those games. RPGs are an entirely subjective experience, but my subjective experience is filtered through language like “outcomes” and “what’s on the box?” It isn’t meant to replace anyone else’s way of viewing things, or to even provide a framework for others, but it’s helpful to have some terms to express ideas, especially when you’re accountable to an audience, like I am.
Because I think you have to account for both? The procedures I find to be overly long and unhelpful in Mouse Guard and BW may very well be what people find fun about those games. RPGs are an entirely subjective experience, but my subjective experience is filtered through language like “outcomes” and “what’s on the box?” It isn’t meant to replace anyone else’s way of viewing things, or to even provide a framework for others, but it’s helpful to have some terms to express ideas, especially when you’re accountable to an audience, like I am.
I think ‘Grit’ is Luke’s middle name… 😛
I think ‘Grit’ is Luke’s middle name… 😛
Jason Cordova And what I’m asking you to do is go into some more depth about what you mean, because to me so far your “it’s not efficient at achieving the story outcome” is nearly as much a black box for me as if you just said “I don’t like it”. I’m not trying to shut down your criticism or say you’re not allowed to dislike it. I’m trying to understand what your criticism is.
Jason Cordova And what I’m asking you to do is go into some more depth about what you mean, because to me so far your “it’s not efficient at achieving the story outcome” is nearly as much a black box for me as if you just said “I don’t like it”. I’m not trying to shut down your criticism or say you’re not allowed to dislike it. I’m trying to understand what your criticism is.
Gary Anastasio Yeah, I could do that, but I don’t think it would be the same. One of the things I love about PbtA games is how the moves signal (or ‘goal-post,’ as Steve Mains would say) how you’re supposed to engage the fiction. I think there are some very particular aspects of the MG fiction that might get lost without a set of specific moves to express them. Or, going in the other direction, I think you’d need to strip everything away from DW, and have something that looks a little more like World of Dungeons. I could see both. DW, as written, just seems really finely tuned to tell dungeon crawl stories to me.
Gary Anastasio Yeah, I could do that, but I don’t think it would be the same. One of the things I love about PbtA games is how the moves signal (or ‘goal-post,’ as Steve Mains would say) how you’re supposed to engage the fiction. I think there are some very particular aspects of the MG fiction that might get lost without a set of specific moves to express them. Or, going in the other direction, I think you’d need to strip everything away from DW, and have something that looks a little more like World of Dungeons. I could see both. DW, as written, just seems really finely tuned to tell dungeon crawl stories to me.
So, I’m thinking you expand the rules for Lady Blackbird. You keep the existing pool for action but you add a second pool for “journey” that you use for skills, travel, obstacles that represent time/energy/materials/endurance.
So, I’m thinking you expand the rules for Lady Blackbird. You keep the existing pool for action but you add a second pool for “journey” that you use for skills, travel, obstacles that represent time/energy/materials/endurance.
The idea of “World of Dungeons”-ising Mouse Guard is really interesting. Not necessarily using PbtA for it, but just figuring out how to strip it down to that essential core and building from there.
I may put that in my mental crockpot.
The idea of “World of Dungeons”-ising Mouse Guard is really interesting. Not necessarily using PbtA for it, but just figuring out how to strip it down to that essential core and building from there.
I may put that in my mental crockpot.
Dan Maruschak Well, in my defense, the OP was a simple expression of my preference, with the hopes someone might have an idea about MG PbtA hacks. I could have just left the “complexity” discussion on the table, I guess.
I don’t mind giving a specific example. The Conflict resolution system is fun to the extent it’s kind of its own little game within the game, and it is admirably streamlined compared to BW’s multiple sub-systems. However, in my experience, it takes a long time to get through it; the handling time is quite high. The inherent drama of the situation is deflated because you have to constantly stop and compare the various moves to each other. And then, weirdly, it doesn’t really even resolve the conflict. When it’s over, you have to compare how each side did and negotiate to an outcome. To me, the inherent tension of the situation gets lost. That’s what I mean by not delivering on the promised outcome. The outcome was supposed to be “mice rangers in a cruel, dangerous conflict with a snake” (or whatever), but it just feels like a string of procedures to cope with.
BUT, I acknowledge that is a subjective thing. Some people fucking love that procedure, and that’s great. And it’s entirely possible I myself might grow to love it with more experience. But I love PbtA right now. It doesn’t ask as much from me to get to the desired outcome.
Dan Maruschak Well, in my defense, the OP was a simple expression of my preference, with the hopes someone might have an idea about MG PbtA hacks. I could have just left the “complexity” discussion on the table, I guess.
I don’t mind giving a specific example. The Conflict resolution system is fun to the extent it’s kind of its own little game within the game, and it is admirably streamlined compared to BW’s multiple sub-systems. However, in my experience, it takes a long time to get through it; the handling time is quite high. The inherent drama of the situation is deflated because you have to constantly stop and compare the various moves to each other. And then, weirdly, it doesn’t really even resolve the conflict. When it’s over, you have to compare how each side did and negotiate to an outcome. To me, the inherent tension of the situation gets lost. That’s what I mean by not delivering on the promised outcome. The outcome was supposed to be “mice rangers in a cruel, dangerous conflict with a snake” (or whatever), but it just feels like a string of procedures to cope with.
BUT, I acknowledge that is a subjective thing. Some people fucking love that procedure, and that’s great. And it’s entirely possible I myself might grow to love it with more experience. But I love PbtA right now. It doesn’t ask as much from me to get to the desired outcome.
Jason Cordova Thanks, the concreteness helps a lot. While understanding the move interactions isn’t something that gives me any trouble, I can understand how it might trip some people up. I think the conflict system is one of the biggest problems in the design. The player-authored goals are the biggest issue in my eyes (they’re theoretically supposed to work like a lot like “good BW Beliefs” which as Eloy Cintron mentioned above are one of the trickiest things to do well), both because they slow things down and also because they don’t fit well into the “GM plans the mission” structure of the game. Also, since you roll a lot in a conflict they’ll tend to amplify any other issues that people have with the mechanics (e.g. if people don’t have a good handle on how to estimate their likelihood of success they can end up throwing away resources and getting themselves stuck in a suck-cycle).
Jason Cordova Thanks, the concreteness helps a lot. While understanding the move interactions isn’t something that gives me any trouble, I can understand how it might trip some people up. I think the conflict system is one of the biggest problems in the design. The player-authored goals are the biggest issue in my eyes (they’re theoretically supposed to work like a lot like “good BW Beliefs” which as Eloy Cintron mentioned above are one of the trickiest things to do well), both because they slow things down and also because they don’t fit well into the “GM plans the mission” structure of the game. Also, since you roll a lot in a conflict they’ll tend to amplify any other issues that people have with the mechanics (e.g. if people don’t have a good handle on how to estimate their likelihood of success they can end up throwing away resources and getting themselves stuck in a suck-cycle).
Random musings…
John built World of Dungeons by coming back to the core mechanic that sits at the crux of Dungeon World: on a 10+, you do something, on a 7-9, there’s a catch, and on a 6-, things go screwy. He took away all the different types of rolls, and made that the only type of roll. Then he made the other mechanics (which are few) work off of that. A lot of what he built was non-dice related, mechanical stuff like “if you meet these prerequisites, you can do that thing”. Fictional mechanics, that is.
So how do you apply that to Mouse Guard? Beyond the “you roll dice, and if you fail there’s a twist or you get a condition” core, what is the purpose of the dice mechanics? How do they drive the fiction of Mouse Guard in the way that the 10+/7-9/6- mechanics drive the fiction of Dungeon World? (I have a few initial starts of thoughts.)
The other thing is, the basic structure of missions and such are easily folded into fictional (non-numerical) mechanics, I think. Winter Phase also needs to be reflected somehow.
Random musings…
John built World of Dungeons by coming back to the core mechanic that sits at the crux of Dungeon World: on a 10+, you do something, on a 7-9, there’s a catch, and on a 6-, things go screwy. He took away all the different types of rolls, and made that the only type of roll. Then he made the other mechanics (which are few) work off of that. A lot of what he built was non-dice related, mechanical stuff like “if you meet these prerequisites, you can do that thing”. Fictional mechanics, that is.
So how do you apply that to Mouse Guard? Beyond the “you roll dice, and if you fail there’s a twist or you get a condition” core, what is the purpose of the dice mechanics? How do they drive the fiction of Mouse Guard in the way that the 10+/7-9/6- mechanics drive the fiction of Dungeon World? (I have a few initial starts of thoughts.)
The other thing is, the basic structure of missions and such are easily folded into fictional (non-numerical) mechanics, I think. Winter Phase also needs to be reflected somehow.
Dan Maruschak I believe it was you who described in your review that I see as the biggest stumbling block of the conflict mechanics: the ‘gaming’ of the stakes. As in: you shoot for the moon with your stakes, knowing that you will have to negotiate at the end, so you won’t have to sacrifice much.
Learning and accepting the setting of reasonable goals rather than shooting for the moon is what gets the grit into the conflict.
Still, I can appreciate Jason Cordova ‘s concern with the post-facto argument ruining his immersion. It sometimes happens to me too.
Dan Maruschak I believe it was you who described in your review that I see as the biggest stumbling block of the conflict mechanics: the ‘gaming’ of the stakes. As in: you shoot for the moon with your stakes, knowing that you will have to negotiate at the end, so you won’t have to sacrifice much.
Learning and accepting the setting of reasonable goals rather than shooting for the moon is what gets the grit into the conflict.
Still, I can appreciate Jason Cordova ‘s concern with the post-facto argument ruining his immersion. It sometimes happens to me too.
More thoughts on WoD-ising Mouse Guard: what does the conflict subsystem accomplish in terms of the overall narrative of MG? (I have stronger thoughts on this but I like being Socratic to kick it off.) Why is it a setpiece, and why are stakes negotiated ahead of time? What does that do for conflict, as opposed to something free-flowing like World of Dungeons, where a conflict and its stakes unfold emergently?
More thoughts on WoD-ising Mouse Guard: what does the conflict subsystem accomplish in terms of the overall narrative of MG? (I have stronger thoughts on this but I like being Socratic to kick it off.) Why is it a setpiece, and why are stakes negotiated ahead of time? What does that do for conflict, as opposed to something free-flowing like World of Dungeons, where a conflict and its stakes unfold emergently?
Just to toss in my two coppers:
I was hyped when Jason Cordova brought Mouseguard to the table. It sounded like a fun low power fantasy romp, and going through character creation was still fun though a little complicated, because the setup steps let me think about what character was going to come from it.
I think what really hit hard was how every conflict seemed to slow into a bog-crawl, between figuring out how the mechanics worked, and how when all was said and done, it just gave the winner more influence over how it ended. Maybe we could of played more and gotten used to the mechanics, but I think I’m just a quick and easy kinda guy. I like picking up the dice, making the roll, and pushing onward with the story. Which is what I felt like Mouseguard was suppose to be: frenzied action and then dealing with the aftermath. The mechanics felt more like if I wanted to play a game where meticulous planning was needed, a more social game of thrones and daggers perhaps?
Maybe if we had done less road traveling and combat and more “dealing with NPCs in conflicts and having troubles”, I’d enjoy the feeling of thoughtful plotting and chart-checking. It seemed to fit more of a mindset of “do I fight this here, or let it slide and attack from a position of power?” But I think what i took from the tin was something different than what was inside, and that was the source of disappointment.
Just to toss in my two coppers:
I was hyped when Jason Cordova brought Mouseguard to the table. It sounded like a fun low power fantasy romp, and going through character creation was still fun though a little complicated, because the setup steps let me think about what character was going to come from it.
I think what really hit hard was how every conflict seemed to slow into a bog-crawl, between figuring out how the mechanics worked, and how when all was said and done, it just gave the winner more influence over how it ended. Maybe we could of played more and gotten used to the mechanics, but I think I’m just a quick and easy kinda guy. I like picking up the dice, making the roll, and pushing onward with the story. Which is what I felt like Mouseguard was suppose to be: frenzied action and then dealing with the aftermath. The mechanics felt more like if I wanted to play a game where meticulous planning was needed, a more social game of thrones and daggers perhaps?
Maybe if we had done less road traveling and combat and more “dealing with NPCs in conflicts and having troubles”, I’d enjoy the feeling of thoughtful plotting and chart-checking. It seemed to fit more of a mindset of “do I fight this here, or let it slide and attack from a position of power?” But I think what i took from the tin was something different than what was inside, and that was the source of disappointment.
Related: I’ve long felt that the world needs a Mouse Guard hack of Dogs in the Vineyard, because the core premise (servants of righteousness/justice in a more or less lawless territory, given authority and forced to make hard calls) is spot-on for Mouse Guard.
(I know some people vehemently disagree with me on this, largely because of how they interpret Dogs, but this is something I stand by.)
ADDENDUM for nuance: not to say that the Dogs’ conception of righteousness and justice is universal. Rather, it’s pretty inflexible but often necessary and right. The core conflict of Dogs is reconciling that rigid code with actual examples of humanity who sometimes confirm the code and sometimes challenge it.
That’s very Mouse Guard, and the first book (Fall 1152) is about that very conflict, featuring someone who thinks their ideals are wrong.
Related: I’ve long felt that the world needs a Mouse Guard hack of Dogs in the Vineyard, because the core premise (servants of righteousness/justice in a more or less lawless territory, given authority and forced to make hard calls) is spot-on for Mouse Guard.
(I know some people vehemently disagree with me on this, largely because of how they interpret Dogs, but this is something I stand by.)
ADDENDUM for nuance: not to say that the Dogs’ conception of righteousness and justice is universal. Rather, it’s pretty inflexible but often necessary and right. The core conflict of Dogs is reconciling that rigid code with actual examples of humanity who sometimes confirm the code and sometimes challenge it.
That’s very Mouse Guard, and the first book (Fall 1152) is about that very conflict, featuring someone who thinks their ideals are wrong.
I still need to play dogs at some point. I haven’t had a crisis of faith in a long while and I’m due.
I still need to play dogs at some point. I haven’t had a crisis of faith in a long while and I’m due.
Andy Hauge I think there’s a bit of a mismatch there: in Dogs, the towns aren’t “lawless” but do, in principle, believe they are obligated to adhere to the same rules the Dogs are enforcing. And in MG, the guardmice specifically don’t have authority in the towns, just the wilderness between (which I think is an interesting bit of tension in the setting).
Andy Hauge I think there’s a bit of a mismatch there: in Dogs, the towns aren’t “lawless” but do, in principle, believe they are obligated to adhere to the same rules the Dogs are enforcing. And in MG, the guardmice specifically don’t have authority in the towns, just the wilderness between (which I think is an interesting bit of tension in the setting).
Dan Maruschak: Fair point, and I’ve disagreed with you in the past on this exact subject. Basically, I think that it’s still in general a very very good fit, even if the specifics aren’t airtight.
Dan Maruschak: Fair point, and I’ve disagreed with you in the past on this exact subject. Basically, I think that it’s still in general a very very good fit, even if the specifics aren’t airtight.
Darn… now I want to play Dogs…
Darn… now I want to play Dogs…
I ran it for about six to eight sessions after it first came out, what three years ago, four? Something like that.
Essentially what happened is that I gave up on the structure after about three sessions. I had some of the same issues with it that Jason did, in that conflicts were extremely anti-climatic.
But the players had other issues besides this. The players hated having to negotiate the transformation of the die results into narrative at the end, because that meant that they had to accept consequences for the characters that they were not willing to accept. If the interpretation resulted in the characters running away from the battle, that meant that they couldn’t continue in the dogged “to the last man” sort of fight that they wanted to have.
Finally, as I recall, the wilderness and seasonal rolls seemed mainly a bother to them, on the same level as encumbrance. I think we all know how much players like that.
After three or four sessions, I just ran it like I run every other game I run, and it was this fact that caused me to abandon it for the FtF campaign I currently run, which is still ongoing after many years
I ran it for about six to eight sessions after it first came out, what three years ago, four? Something like that.
Essentially what happened is that I gave up on the structure after about three sessions. I had some of the same issues with it that Jason did, in that conflicts were extremely anti-climatic.
But the players had other issues besides this. The players hated having to negotiate the transformation of the die results into narrative at the end, because that meant that they had to accept consequences for the characters that they were not willing to accept. If the interpretation resulted in the characters running away from the battle, that meant that they couldn’t continue in the dogged “to the last man” sort of fight that they wanted to have.
Finally, as I recall, the wilderness and seasonal rolls seemed mainly a bother to them, on the same level as encumbrance. I think we all know how much players like that.
After three or four sessions, I just ran it like I run every other game I run, and it was this fact that caused me to abandon it for the FtF campaign I currently run, which is still ongoing after many years
Andy Hauge I wanted to engage with some of your previous musings…
The beauty of World of Dungeons is that it lays bare the fact that all PbtA games can, more or less, be reduced to Defy Danger (or Act Under Pressure or equivalent). It’s a good fit for old-school fantasy because most role-players understand the tropes and story beats of that genre, making it fairly easy to role-play. A game like Worldwide Wrestling or Spirit of ’77, on the other hand, aims to tell a much more obscure or specialized kind of story. In that case, a set of Basic Moves and playbook moves help signal how the RP is supposed to go.
I think Mouse Guard sits somewhere in the middle of that. I think it would benefit from a minimal move set, but with a few MG-specific things sprinkled in to really bring it home. And here I mean some dice-enforced outcomes, not the looser extras World of Dungeons has, which I think only work because the tropes of the genre are so well-known.
Andy Hauge I wanted to engage with some of your previous musings…
The beauty of World of Dungeons is that it lays bare the fact that all PbtA games can, more or less, be reduced to Defy Danger (or Act Under Pressure or equivalent). It’s a good fit for old-school fantasy because most role-players understand the tropes and story beats of that genre, making it fairly easy to role-play. A game like Worldwide Wrestling or Spirit of ’77, on the other hand, aims to tell a much more obscure or specialized kind of story. In that case, a set of Basic Moves and playbook moves help signal how the RP is supposed to go.
I think Mouse Guard sits somewhere in the middle of that. I think it would benefit from a minimal move set, but with a few MG-specific things sprinkled in to really bring it home. And here I mean some dice-enforced outcomes, not the looser extras World of Dungeons has, which I think only work because the tropes of the genre are so well-known.
Doyle Tavener Seven years now, I think.
Doyle Tavener Seven years now, I think.
Also, this is one of those beautifully civil Gauntlet conversations Jason Morningstar mentioned on the podcast. Oh wait, I’m getting ahead of myself ;-)
Also, this is one of those beautifully civil Gauntlet conversations Jason Morningstar mentioned on the podcast. Oh wait, I’m getting ahead of myself ;-)
Whoa! But, funny, I was thinking the same thing. There’s ALWAYS good conversation here. And all very polite and civil.
Whoa! But, funny, I was thinking the same thing. There’s ALWAYS good conversation here. And all very polite and civil.
Jason Cordova: I feel like Conditions might wind up being one of those really core bits and bobs. Granted, they feel like they fit better with Torchbearer, but I think they do a good job of representing the gravity and grit of the situation, how the mice sometimes run into problems because they’re not physically able to deal with them, they’re impaired by that. Which is a very Burning Wheel thing.
Jason Cordova: I feel like Conditions might wind up being one of those really core bits and bobs. Granted, they feel like they fit better with Torchbearer, but I think they do a good job of representing the gravity and grit of the situation, how the mice sometimes run into problems because they’re not physically able to deal with them, they’re impaired by that. Which is a very Burning Wheel thing.
Andy Hauge I could see that. I think the things that stick out to me about Mouse Guard are 1) the effect of the seasons on the Guard’s work; 2) the background of the mice (city and mentor) and 3) the tensions expressed in the Nature stat.
Andy Hauge I could see that. I think the things that stick out to me about Mouse Guard are 1) the effect of the seasons on the Guard’s work; 2) the background of the mice (city and mentor) and 3) the tensions expressed in the Nature stat.