Hello there. I’ve started my MG 2e RPG read. I’ve fallen in love with the setting, but I really didn’t like the GM’s “The Mission” part of the game.
It reads like a rushed sequence of railroads: Mice run through a pre-determined and pre-calculated sequence of encounters with a very specific number of checks, then find a place to rest where they’re allowed only a short respite before hitting the road again.
I’ve first thought that it was going to be an easy thing to just rip that part off, before I realised that the entire game seems balanced on the fact mice have arbitrarily few checks. Screw this, and I’ll also screw with the “checks” economy and overflow opportunities to call Bonds/Instincts/Goals as well.
So: Can I and it actually won’t break the game? Should I just find another game?
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s not actually a “railroad” when you get to play it. Instead, think of the “GM turn” / “Player turn” just as being who gets to frame the scenes.
First off, the PCs are Guard Mice so have a mission. Then, the GM gets to frame two (and only two) obstacles to achieving that mission, and those are resolved by one of success, success with a Condition, or a Twist. Once the GM has framed those two obstacles, they’re done. They can’t frame any more scenes until the players have had their turns.
Then the players get to take control and say what they want to do. The PCs have the Goals to pursue and the Beliefs to test and challenge (and the players wrote them, so they’re invested in them.) The players pick objectives and frame scenes around them, and the GM has no choice but to react to them. That happens at least once per player, or more if the players earned Checks in the GM turn.
Only once all the player turns have resolved does the GM get back any control of the direction of the game.
Compare that to a more traditional structure, where the GM is in control of all the scenes, and the players can only react to the scenes the GM is framing.
Downtime isn’t revolutionary, even if you follow this strict formula.
I don’t think players should be fighting for the narrative control with the GM. I don’t think GMs should be in control of most scenes in a traditional game either.
I feel like the game pushes me a solution to a problem I already know how to solve, and I can solve it better.
Maybe it’s not for you, and that’s fine! But you’re doing the game a disservice to call it “a rushed sequence of railroads.”
It is clear our definition differ.
I decided to play it but take out what I don’t like in the end.
I’ve ran the game a few times with no railroading involved. They give you a basic form, but you don’t need to follow that. Be prepared to add some challenge to whatever the mission is, but let them deal with it how they may. The main goal should be to give them opportunities to act heroically and to bruise and exhaust the mice a bit before they get to the next town. Life is hard for a small mouse and few brave the wilderness like the guard dies after all.
Checks force them to act their traits and to not just pay lip service to the character they claim their mouse to be. The players naturally won’t want to use anything against their mice, they want to beat the game and succeed, but I would remind them of 2 things:- There is no failure in Mouse Guard, you might get a setback (which once you deal with your first goal is also achieved), you get to do it but will have a condition or you just succeed. So there it’s not about winning or loosing, it’s about how far will they go to win, a brave maouse guard, a hero of the guard, will go all the way, so the more hardship the braver, more respected they get to be.
- The player with many checks gets to be the big hero for the group once they get to player phase and they can help everyone recover conditions and do other stuff.
So, checks actually do two great things in my opinion, make the characters look more heroic and make the player more popular with the group since they are the one helping them recover. So they act both on the character and player level.
Oh, and also, leaning into the traits actually improves your overall story. Fiddian’s stubborness can become the stuff everyone at the table remarks upon, or Sally’s kindness can be the sweet thing that gets her always into trouble. This works best in a longer game though, but it is something to keep in mind imo.
I’m somewhat afraid that keeping the checks but removing the limited number of rolls would backfire, though – “I have already gotten my hero point, I don’t need to make trouble with my flaws anymore”
but removing the limited number of rolls would backfire
I’m not sure what you meant by that. You as the GM are still in control because you are the one that calls for tests. So you can limit them if you feel they are trying to keep rolling for everything. In my opinion the presentationis different but the game is not that different from other more traditional games.
If you think about it the GM turn is just the regular fantasy adventuring phase with the Player turn being the part where the GM let’s the players relax and recuperate, like when they are in a town or making a camp. The only difference is that the game thinks that the adventuring phase should be mostly narration with 4-8 rolls to solve it all and maybe one conflict and that the players phase should be dependent on them roleplaying their characters as they made them in the adventuring phase.
But it might also just not be a good fit for you and your group.
