I’ve long said that I was a mono-gamist. I heavily invest myself in one game system and I spent most of my free time on it. The fact that many consider this blog to be a D&D 4e blog lends strong support to that assertion. But lately, maybe because I’m well past my mid-30s, I confess to a certain attraction for some of those sexy, subversive, nose-ringed tattooed indie games beauties.
I’m sure D&D will understand… I mean we were apart for 10 years during my Gurps period, what’s a few more hours eh?
Chief among those sexy games is Mouseguard, a simplified version of Luke Crane’s Burning Wheel based on the Mouseguard Comic Book. I bought the game at the Indie Press Revolution booth at Gen Con in 2009 based on reader suggestions, Ennies nomination and Peter Atkinson’s endorsements. I voraciously read it (it’s one of the best written RPG book I’ve read). I met the author at a local con last summer and I got further insights on how the game was supposed to be played from him.
Then, a few weeks ago, I got to try a tiny bit of it with PM, one short sword duel, and we loved it. Enough that PM called for our December Sunday game to be a Mouse Guard one. I was only too happy to oblige.
Mini-Review and learning to GM Mouseguard
I’ll tell you one thing that I’m sure many who’ve read the book will tell you. The game is hard to ‘get’ from a straight read-through. I was doing some serious head scratching after reading it. I knew it had the potential to be awesome, but I couldn’t for the life of me find where it explained how the damn game was played!
I know I’m a bright guy and I’ve been reading Role Playing game rules for the better part of the last 3 decades. When I can’t wrap my mind around something it usually means that the teaching material is bad (it wasn’t), that there are concepts I am too unfamiliar to grok (true) or that I wasn’t in the proper frame of mind when I tried to learn the game (also true) .
As I was reading it, I was expecting a ‘how all of these systems fuse together into a game’ chapter. At least, I hoped to see some kind of flow chart but none were to be found, not even a character sheet (you can find those online, and the cheat sheet is also on them).
I was feeling I was missing something, and others I talked to did too.
Then it dawned on me, all those I asked were long time D&D players or players of some other more classic games. Our brains were hardwired with how a RPG’s engine should purr (Classes or skill based, point-build or levels, tactical or abstracted combat, etc) and Mouse Guard/Burning Wheel is based on a whole other set of assumption. Grokking Mouse Guard implied that I had to see the game with different expectations and a broader outlook.
So I made ‘getting’ what Mouse Guard was about into a Nerd Project. As I said, I read it (3 times), I tried it and I tracked down the designer to talk about it some.
From my understanding, the game is built around PCs aspects and game engine aspects. The PC aspects are about Goals, Beliefs, Instincts, Traits and Skills. The goals, beliefs and instinct parts are what shape who the PCs really are and help players role play and make key decisions. Instincts and traits are gut reflexes and quirks that further flesh out a PC. They also allow players to play against themselves for various rewards. The skills are what the PC is good at doing but the game engine encourages players to branch out, try things while totally untrained. Above all, the game encourages PCs to Fail!
The game engine is centered around Challenge, Failure, Conflicts and Compromise. Challenges are straight skill tests (single or expanded) where a single PC adds dice from various sources (including those of his fellow PCs and gear) to roll X number of successes using a Dice Pool system.
Failures are built directly in the game’s engine. When PCs fail, the GM introduces new plot twists (oh no, a wolf captures your escort NPC!) or impose a condition on PCs (You finally caught with the lost mice but you’re all Angry from the frustrating and scary ordeal). This part can be as planned (pre-made twists and conditions) or improvised as the GM chooses.
Along with failure management, conflicts are another aspect that make the game shine. Conflict covers all prolonged opposed contests where something crucial is at stake and where tactical aspects represent various ‘states’ of the conflict. This applies, of course, to combat, but also to arguments, chases, speeches and journeys. Each side determines a goal for the Conflict (ex: “I will distract the guards to let my friends sneak by” vs “I will teach this pesky mouseguard a lesson”). Then each side ‘attacks’ the other side’s ‘disposition’ (like HP) through a repeating cycle of choosing an action, roleplaying/description it and then roll dice for it.
The conflict mechanics really make the game fly above many others I’ve played in the last 10 years.
Finally the outcome of all conflicts usually end up in some sort of compromise where both side compare the relative damages they took and come to an agreement about how much of each other’s goal is met (with emphasis on the winning side getting, at least partly, what it wants).
Once you get the above assumptions/concepts and once you understand how most of the parts interact with one another (e.g. How ‘helping’ works, how ‘gear’ work, how traits can be used for or against a PC and how experience work), you really need to go into trial and error mode, with the book opened, to play it. Don’t sweat the inevitable stumbles, the engine can take it and PCs only die if people agree that death is on the line.
It truly is a beautiful game, from an arts and mechanics point of view.
Up next: We meet our heroes and we plod through their first challenge!
I notices that when you talked about the conflict system, you didn’t mention that it was a scripted system. I was curious as to how your group took to that, as many gamers I’ve talked to had problems with the idea of choosing actions blindly. Personally, it’s one of my favorite aspects of Burning Wheel, Burning Empires, and Mouse Guard, but I always like to hear about others’ take on it.
.-= Shaun Hayworth´s last blog ..Like a good episode of Maury Povich’s Daddys, We’re shaking it up. =-.
Mouseguard seems a much simpler game to start with than Burning Wheel. I love BW and the book was a nice read but it’s much too complicated.
Mouseguard does pretty much all BW does in simpler terms thus it shines. I think Luke Crane should publish this simplified version as a generic system IMO.
I have read the book several times also. I have yet to GM it though. The hardest part I am trying to understand is the whole GM turn, Player Turn system. One issue I have is that the GM goes first.
Since the GM’s turn is first and he sets up the conflicts, the players don’t seem to have time to prep. What if the player wanted to talk with an old friend in the town they are in to get some advice before they left?
Did you encounter any issues with the strict turn format?
@Shaun: Yeah I was purposely vague here as there are 2 conflicts in the adventure we played and I’ll get into the nitty gritty of them at that point.
To answer your question, some players balked at the apparent ‘rock Paper Scissors’ aspect of conflicts. However, from the first moment I saw the mechanics, my poker genes screamed that players could learn to read each other and that further levels of strartegies could emerge from it all.
Luke told me he could totally read his players and that this was factored in his GM vs player conflicts.
However, in the beginning it’s totally random (especially with 2 teams vs one) and it kinda simulates more classical RPGs in that the outcome is semi-random.
@sicnaxyz: (Man, your alias is HARD) Luke told me that he wanted to get a BW 3rd edition out that factored in some of the simplification of Mouse Guard. As you say though, extracting the game from the Fluff would make for a great generic system… I’d love to play pulp/Indiana Jones-style MG with my son… although I could pull it off in generic MG by sending a guard into a ruin of the 1149 Weasel war.
@Jester OC: Excellent question! It’s capital that the GM’s turn comes first in a classic session (a 4 hour adventure). The player’s turns is first and foremost to allow Mice to recuperate from status effects and secondly to create scenes to achieve goals and instincts.
However the GM’s turn is nothing but an outline. You don’t have to rush to the first obstacle, in fact you shouldn’t so the PCs don’t feel forced into the adventure. Let them get help from friends and gear… and have them make Circles and Resources checks. Success should provide them with gear or info that would provide a +1D to their first (or possibly future) obstacle roll.
The rules are a bit unclear but the roller of the obstacle check will only be allowed one +1D from gear or info. Other PCs Helpers will either use their skills or can utilize unused acquired gear or Info to provide their own +1D.
That’s how I would do it.
So go ahead and let players make checks as long as it doesn’t derail the adventure off Gwendolyn’s mission(for a Spring mission) or away from the Mouse Guards responsibilities (for Summer and Fall missions)
The way Phil explained it is that in the GM turn, he is in full control of the narrative and players can do things as long as they are related to the mission they are on.
In the players turn they are in control of the narrative which means they could do anything, even is unrelated with the mission. One player could say “I want to make a friend that as access to some sweet military arsenal.” The GM determines the difficulty and if the player succeeds it’s his as he state it.
That’s the way I understand it.
Argh! Phil posted just after I started my reply … oh Well. 😉
Thanks for the honest writeup, especially the part about struggling to understand. I think a lot of indie designers work from a common set of assumptions that make it hard for old school rpg fans to grasp.
Thanks to your glowing recommendation, I have ordered both Mouse Guard and The Burning Wheel RPGs. It is quite a feat convincing me to spend money.
.-= doomdreamer´s last blog ..Outlines! =-.
Thanks for the great write-up/review. I have been eyeing Mouse Guard for a few months and I think you have finally pushed me over the edge to actually purchase it…
By the way… I also have the same problem with indies that you do, or rather, it’s a problem I have regarding the set of assumptions I bring to the game due to my old-school rpg background. You, sir, are not alone!
I remember reading Burning Wheel and having the same thought as you did. I had absolutely no idea where to go with it. I did buy the Mouse guard RPG, but I have not had a chance to play. I think I will bring it along with me on holiday this week to read. Look forward to the rest of your reviews.
@Chris: I suspected that I was in front of some sort of assumption divide when I was reading the game. My cool brain was all fuzzy happy with the setting, the art and the cool mechanics. My analytical brain was ‘fine, fine, now how do you actually play that game?’
I feel that MG is a bridge indie game in that if an ‘old-school/mainstream’ gamer is willing to make an effort, the outcome is totally worth it. I know I’m already up to play it at cons with my buddies.
@Doomdreamer: Whoa… I’m impressed… I should have brokered an affiliate deal with Crane and Co.
@DM Samuel: Like someone said on Twitter, if the hype of a RPG stays one year after release, there’s something there. I also suspected that many thought the same in reading Burning Wheel and MG.
@Sean Brady: I hope you’ll get more from the posts that the review part as what follows will be an Actual Play report of a session that we all appreciated. Looking forward to writing it.
The postscript of one Buttersafe comic is “Set aside all your preconceptions about what an ice cream truck should be and consider for a moment what an ice cream truck could be.”
One should take this to heart considering ice cr- RPG’S. I WAS TALKING ABOUT INDIE RPG’S.
I read through MG recently and had the same problems as Chatty and it seems a couple of other people understanding exactly ‘How To’ play the game. Now thanks to this post i have a far better understanding, Thanks Chatty.
That sounded like an informercial confession! lol
That being said, the aspects that i took and already understood from MG have really improved all my RPG’s. Failing doesn’t necessarily mean failing the objective is probably the best lesson for any DM. Narrative combat can really speed games up and keep things interesting. In my homebrew campaign i now start every combat as a narrative SE where the players nominate whatever action the like and try to achieve it through a Skill Check. All enemy attacks are based on Saves and when a PC fails a skill check or save the combat turns ‘Dire’ resorting back to a 4E like combat system.
The narrative has really let players shine and think outside the box without being restricted to the static turn based and rule heavy combat i’ve gotten used through 3.5 and 4e DnD.
Thanks Chatty and Mouse Guard
Shameless Plug, Nicholas from Dungeon Mastering has just released Arete a greek epic style RPG which also has a great Narrative combat system that i borrowed heavily from for my Home Brew system. It’s worth checking out.
Scott
I was on the edge about buying Mouseguard, but you’ve tipped me right over. I became really interested after reading a great post at gnomestew: http://www.gnomestew.com/reviews/mouse-guard-rpg-review-want-to-play-a-mouse-with-a-sword which went to great detail about the system. Now to read you glowing review, I’m even more curious read the book and maybe even try to GM the game.
Do you think it is a good game to use to introduce people to RPGs? Also, how hard do you think it would be for an new or inexperienced GM to run Mouseguard?
“PCs only die if people agree that death is on the line”
That sounds like a very “new-age” approach to mortality (as evidenced by all the 4e is easy-mode rumblings). Have you encounter any resistance to that aspect of the game, Chatty?
.-= Colmarr´s last blog ..Raiders of Oakhurst; Ch 3.5 =-.
@Trabant: That’s the realization I had to make to move from the WTF? to So cool! box.
@Scott: I think I’ll call Crane and tell him to hire me to sell his game online. 🙂 Makes me wish I designed my own games sometimes.
Have any reviews of Arete been posted yet?
@Level1Gamer: I think the game is PERFECT for new gamers who aren’t yet encumbered with the tropes and assumptions of the big systems. However, I must say that the game needs to be run by a colorful, fast-thinking and flexible GM. There’s little room for doubt or petty tyranny. The game runs on high trust and flexible sharing of narrative control.
The highest risk will be that the new, inexperienced GM will often kill the game’s momentum as he looks things up in the rules.
So I’d say: great for new players. Made for experienced GMs.
@Colmar: Ahhh, I like those questions.
It’s beyond New-Agey. It’s one of those diametrically opposed assumptions. Mouse Guard is about fighting, not about death. In D&D both are 90% the same, not in MG.
In Mouse Guard, you can easily become injured, which significantly affects your success rate in later checks. However the only time a PC or a NPC can die is when whomever sets a conflict announces that Death should be on the line.
Two common examples would be a Journey conflict (Mice vs Weather) where the GM says that an early Spring blizzard strikes the PCs and may freeze them to death.
Another is when a PC and a NPC decide to square off in a mortal duel and one (or both) write ‘to the death’ in their goals.
The game encourages players and GMs to agree to such scenes before starting them so that everyone knows what’s at stake (and allow one side to back down if need be).
Having seen how the underlying emotion of players could spike in a benign argument conflict, I can imagine just how intense a ‘to the Death’ conflict could become.
However the GM’s turn is nothing but an outline. You don’t have to rush to the first obstacle, in fact you shouldn’t so the PCs don’t feel forced into the adventure. Let them get help from friends and gear… and have them make Circles and Resources checks. Success should provide them with gear or info that would provide a +1D to their first (or possibly future) obstacle roll.
A very strong no to this. 🙂 When the mission is given, it’s go with what you have. You’re on a mission! No time to chit-chat with friends, reminisce about the good ol’ days or shop at the Lockhaven Emporium. If you encounter situations where you feel you need a little extra help from gear or whatnot, that’s when you look at Circles and check your skill lists. That’s what the hazards are all about!
Ex: “As you approach, you notice the stream’s current is really fast, much more so than you’d counted on!” “Hmmm… I have Boatcrafter. I can make a boat to get us across.” “I have Survivalist. I can make some paddles to help.” “I’ve got a good Scout skill. I’ll keep an eye out for twigs and rocks as we cross.” (i.e., a complex test, with the Boatcrafter as primary and the other two helping via applicable skills.)
That’s the kind of fun the game is all about! Now imagine the above situation had they gone shopping and had a canoe and paddles? Boring. 🙂
Also, I noticed something when you talked about compromises. It is important to remember that the winner wins. They achieve what they wanted. You can’t take anything in their goal away from them. That’s not where the compromise happens. HOWEVER… the other side can ask for compromises towards what they wanted. So it’s not a single conflict “meter” with both sides tweaking where you stand in relation to each other on the meter compared to final dispositions. Each side has its own meter. The winner can’t accomplish just half their goal, or three-quarters. They win. Think of it like D&D: You finish the fight with 1 hp. You’re still at full capacity.
The winner gets their goal in full. However, you then look at how badly the winner was brought down in disposition and think of a reasonable compromise based on that. The winners kind of get to sit and judge the compromise being asked for (it’s a bit of a democracy, and often players propose the best compromises in favour of fun narrative). While it’s an option to agree to partially give up achieving your full goal, you do not ever have to do that (and the GM should never do it, because it’s going way too easy on the players).
For ideas on how conflicts are resolved, check out the sample missions, and the example combat conflict with Lieam and the snake. Lieam didn’t have to give up any part of his goal. He killed the snake, which was his goal. However, the major compromise was that he was trapped in the dead snake’s mouth because Lieam’s disposition was greatly reduced by the snake. The GM could have called for Lieam to be Injured instead (imposing a condition as compromise), but it’s not as much fun as agreeing to a more narrative and action-oriented compromise.
Sorry that was long, but hope that helps a bit. 🙂
Sorry, I hadn’t meant to double post, but being a Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard gamer, maybe I can offer a bit of advice for how to approach playing. D&D kind of assumes you’ll be the best you possibly can with what you’ve got (your class/race) and minimize weaknesses. BW and MG aren’t approached in the same way at all. You sort of remove yourself from the character and realize you’re playing the character. It sounds weird, and I had an issue with it at first, but that’s how you get the most out of the game.
Also, everything’s on the table during character creation. No one should write a Belief, Goal or Instinct without everyone knowing about it and even chiming in. This way, you can complement or even go against one another. Anecdote: I made a kind of seasoned, “been to war” guardmouse. He was crass and pragmatic. The player with the recruit decided to be naive to play off me. Her Belief: “The Mouse Guard Oath tells me all I need to be a good guardmouse.” Mine was “It’s not about what’s right; it’s about what works.” In addition, my Goal for our first mission was “Let the recruit see that the Oath doesn’t mean squat in the Wilds.”
First test of the game was Pathfinder, which I had a high skill for. Recruit had zilch, but her Goal was to prove she was a valuable member of the team. Knowing this, I turned the ball to her and both our Goals came into play: I said “Okay, find us the way, little one. Or are the directions not in the Oath?” I gave her no help die. “Fine, I will! It’s this way.” It was an unavoidable failure which we basically opted for because we (as players) were having a blast playing our characters and creating a fun and memorable game.
So you approach MG and BW from the perspective of making things collaborative, fun, intense and memorable. The players are having fun even when (or possibly especially when) the characters aren’t. D&D is more “play to win” because if you lose, the PCs often end up dead.
Hope that helps folks re-align their approaches a bit, because it certainly takes some rethinking for a lot of small-press games, and certainly for Luke’s. I had bug Luke and other veterans on the forums to really start to get it. Cheers and happy gaming!
Oh noes, a Burning Head has come 🙂
Thanks for the insight… and I totally get that if an obstacle can’t be predicted shopping in the Lockhaven Flea Market is out the question.
I realize it will take a few session to shake off some deeply rooted expectations and habits.
As you’ll see tomorrow, a PC had a goal to ‘Anticipate the needs of the leader’ and they were about to go on a trek across still icy lands (my description).
So while in a city before leaving he asked to obtain for one set of ice climbing gear. Skill rolls were made (with all PCs participating) and I allowed it.
My gut feeling tells me I’m in the right… and if not, my boneheaded I’ll-play-that-game-like-I-want will take over:)
But then again… I’m seeing from your second post that this, getting the most chances at succes’ might not be what the game is about… maybe failure needs to happen to make the game enjoyable…
And in that I find the game to be a bit less ‘honest’ with itself. It gives out a ton of options that players will want to grasp to increase their chances of success but the game can reward success with a shorter game and less excitement…
To be discussed in next installements.
I have bought Mouseguard and I am reading it through at the moment (got it mostly thanks to your previous posts about it and the amazing art work).
I was thinking exactly the same thing as you, that it sounds amazing but where do I start? I think from what you have said all you can really do is understand the concepts and just go for it.
Squeezing it around the current 4E game is going to be the hardest part.
I listened to the Walking Eye podcast of an actual play through and that was quiet informative about how the game plays http://www.thewalkingeye.com/?p=409
.-= Binny´s last blog ..Macron-1 =-.
a PC had a goal to ‘Anticipate the needs of the leader’ and they were about to go on a trek across still icy lands (my description). So while in a city before leaving he asked to obtain for one set of ice climbing gear. Skill rolls were made (with all PCs participating) and I allowed it.
Thanks for the context, Phil! However, didn’t he then fulfill his Goal by accomplishing it with a roll before the mission even started?
I did the exact same thing in the first game I GM’d. I then asked folks on the BW forums about pre-mission stuff and got a very firm “No prep before the mission. You go with what you have. Use a check in the Players’ Turn to mount shopping expeditions for future missions, if you want to.”
I didn’t get that at first. Wouldn’t reasonable guardmice get what they need? Then it hit me: The situation (if it arises, which is reasonable in your example) is pre-resolved and you’re giving +1D for the right tools for the job without anything really happening in the game/game fiction. That Goal can be a tough one to make work, and yet it’s strangely very popular!
The other thing is that rolls can be hard to come by (I’ve found), and advancement is slower in MG than in BW. It’s worth going without all the little things you think you’ll need in order to earn some tests. . . and (more importantly) have a blast thinking of ways to overcome the obstacle: “Let’s use Loremouse to convince a rabbit to let us ride it across the open snow!” “No, I’ve got a friend out this way who might be able to help [Circles test]” or “Let’s make our own skis or snowshoes!” etc.
In terms of success equating to a shorter game, I’d say it equates to a shorter GM’s Turn. Then the players get to roll with the Players’ Turn. However, if they didn’t earn checks, it’ll be short, too. (And that will likely happen the first session or two until the idea of using Traits against themselves and earning checks makes sense.) No sweat. Carry on with another GM’s Turn/Players’ Turn cycle. I’ve had both 30-minute cycles and 4-hour ones. If you get the former, you just keep on truckin’.
Anyway, sorry. I don’t mean to annex your blog, Phil. (I hope you don’t feel I have, and hopefully I haven’t!) Cheers, and looking forward to the next blog post!
@Rafe: It has long been a core value of this blog that guest be allowed to bring their soapboxes and expound on the game they love most.
I’m convinced that many many readers (me first) appreciate your insights… and I totally get what you just told me about limiting shopping.
To tell you the truth I was reacting a bit to the ludicrousness of asking for a 6 success challenge when I know players could barely bring 6 dice at the table at best… I mean what’s the point of even having a challenge.
Hell Yan just brought me this EXACT point.
But then the internal consistency of the game hit me. Going against Spring is HARD. I didn’t this the extra +1D would really change thing except bring the number of Dice to 6 and giving a chance (factoring Fate points).
But you are right, I didn’t think that this would likely make finishing a goal before the 1st obstacle was even started.
Thanks for taking the time to post. Like my byline says, it’s like we’re chatting in a game store so passionate speeches is ‘de rigeur’.
Those are excellent point Rafe it really helps getting what MG is about. Thanks for the insight it will help with our next attempt for sure.
Congrats! Making the jump between the structure of D&D (and the task-resolution paradigm) and more unique games is an important jump. I consider myself to be roughly system-independent, moving from game system to game system, and I really am interested by all of the different ways that games attempt to model/storytell things.
If you’re interested in going along this road, check out some other smaller systems, too. The Storytelling System, by White Wolf Games, is more akin to D&D’s task-resolution paradigm (you try and do something, and then you succeed or fail), but it incorporates deeper elements of character through not only its Virtue/Vice system, but also a deep field of character traits. Plus, it uses a dice pool mechanic, which is always fun.
Also, if you REALLY want to stretch your horizons, check out Wushu Open (particularly the fan creation known as Wushu Open Reloaded): it’s a narrative-driven game that encourages active roleplaying as a means of doing well. Also very rules-lite, so it’s easy to learn and play on the fly. Just pack a bunch of d6s, and (if you want) some chips or tokens to mark Chi/Health.
@Chatty DM, Arete’s product page has some consumer reviews from independent people, Tyson J Hayes’ is the most in depth and informed. I’m not aware of any other sites reveiwing Arete at this stage.
Scott
.-= Scott´s last blog ..Nerd Watching: How to Win Friends and Dominate Minds =-.