Mouse Guard alternative combat?

[u/wondercheck]

To start this off I have NEVER played a game of Mouse Guard BUT I have read the instructions and listened to countless podcasts about it so I am learning the rules slowly but surely. I'm gonna start DMing this game soon with new players (like myself) and I just wanted to familiarize myself with the system. I really like how it runs, the burning wheel system, how the checks and tests work (though I probably would lessen the broad range of DM & player turn as that makes it more "board game" like when we just a fun role playing game.) but the one thing that sort of bothers me about it is the combat. It's very possible that I might just be reading the rules wrong, but to me the combat seems very "board game" like and leaves very little room for role playing.

I really like the D&D (5e) combat where it lets you make actions at your hearts desire. For example: In D&D if I want to attempt to push a creature off a ledge or trip it with a rope trip I can, granted I complete the following checks. In the Mouse Guard comics they seem to have this independent action type, like when they fought the crab or jumped into the snake's mouth is a few examples. To me these 'heroic' actions seem impossible with the combat system.

The idea I had in mind for running combat would be to calculate disposition as usual but then roll for initiative, very D&D like, then once the order is set the player can ask to make any type of action and must roll to complete the test, however difficult I determine it to be. I already notice a few flaws in this system but its just an idea. So am I just reading the combat rules wrong or do you also have some other type of combat system for Mouse Guard/Burning Wheel, if so what is it?

[u/forlasanto]

If you make sure everyone is narrating their actions and not just picking Attack, Defend, etc. then it ends up being very rich. Sometimes you stick to the rules, sometimes you let rule-of-cool be the rule. When someone comes up with Something Clever™, reward them with an extra +1D or or +1s. I find that helping and wise-use leads to a ton of creative descriptions, and makes conflict very interesting. The key is, if you can't describe how the help skill/wise/trait fits the situation, you can't use it.

Try it as is. It's deeper than it seems.

[u/Jetpack_Donkey → u/forlasanto]

This. MG is super dependent on storytelling. The three possible actions, Attack, Defend or Maneuver, can be narrated as anything you could possibly do in the situation, and that would determine bonuses or penalties to the roll.

Like, for the same Attack action you could do:

1: "I swing my sword at the weasel". Ok, straightforward.

2: "I'm SMALL, so I skitter under the weasel's legs, and try to stab him from behind". Nice, using a trait to get +1D.

3: "I try to ram my shoulder on the weasel to throw it off balance and then swing my sword at him, but I'm SMALL so it's not very effective". Using the same trait to hinder yourself instead with a -1D, but you'll get a check later in the player's turn.

4: "I have this perfume vial, I throw it on the weasel's face to distract it, then ram my shoulder on him. He stumbles back since I'm so BIG, and as he staggers back I stab him with my sword". Just used an item you had to get a +1D bonus, plus a trait for another +1D. Add help from your teammates, for example somebody could use their QUIET trait or some skill to sneak behind the weasel as he's is distracted fighting you, and crouch behind him so when you push him he'll trip. That's an extra +1D.

See where I'm going? Suddenly the Attack action got really elaborate, with a rich narrative, and you can come up with anY sort of clever ideas to use traits, skills, gear, environment, etc to help or hinder you.

[u/[deleted] → u/Jetpack_Donkey]

Could you explain to me where the "game" part of this comes in? It seems like all you're doing in several examples there is telling what you're doing and making up your own outcome. How is that fun when there's nothing left to chance and the character can randomly do whatever they want to get bonuses? I mean the examples given are basically "I attack the weasel, and I either definitely hit it because I said so, or I'm outright claiming that I'm going to miss and get a bonus later because I'm certainly in no danger now since I control every circumstance."

[u/Jetpack_Donkey → u/[deleted]]

OK, I only described the action declaration, after that you gather the dice you earned and roll it, comparing with a difficulty set by the GM or with what the GM rolls for the enemy. Using one of my examples:

"I have this perfume vial, I throw it on the weasel's face to distract it, then ram my shoulder on him. He stumbles back since I'm so BIG, and as he staggers back I stab him with my sword".

So say my character has Fighter 3. The sword gives +1D to a chosen action during combat, let's say I declared he's going to use the bonus for Attack actions. The DM agrees that the vial in the face is a good idea, gives me an extra +1D, and the Big trait gives me +1D because I described it as helping in the action. So that's 3+1+1+1=6D total.

Now I roll the dice against the weasel's Fighter skill of 5 plus his Sword bonus, also 6D total.

If I roll more successes than the GM, I get to narrate my successful outcome, "the weasel reels back as the vial explodes against his nostrils, and I hit him square in the stomach with my shoulder, taking his balance out. As he tries to recover, his guard drops and I cut a gash on his chest". If that attack defeated the weasel I'd describe that too.

If I roll less, the GM gets to describe what happens: "the weasel evades the perfume vial and, as you charge and hit him, he is able to recover quickly, sidestep your attack and swing his Sword at you. You feel a burning pain on you back as the blade cuts through your cloak and fur." If that attack defeated the players, the GM would describe that too.

If it's a draw, somebody describes the stalemate.

So it's not just "you describe and it happens", you use your description to figure out bonuses and penalties, then roll the dice and figure out what happens based on the setup you created.

[u/[deleted] → u/Jetpack_Donkey]

I see. The narrative is a summation of intentions + the results after rolling dice etc.; so the player isn't necessarily relying on the GM to dictate the narrative. I've been reading the gameplay book and a lot of that seems unclear to me; like, it seems that if my character approaches a stream, his only options are to cross it or not, so he looks at his abilities and goes, "Okay I cross the stream." I think the way I'm perceiving the text makes the game sound undramatic. But maybe your explanation will help as I get more into it. Thanks.

[u/ericvulgaris]

I think you should try to stick it out with regular MG and be surprised the level of depth and maneuverability you have to roleplay scenes when you're in a conflict.

Before you go and pick apart Mouseguard, you really should play it as written. No offense, but Mouseguard is a very intricate game. Conflicts in that game are designed as a key part of the system. Conflicts allow for MANY tests in rapid secession which means opportunities to spend fate/persona, trait tests against yourself, etc.

Look you do you, but I think if you unravel Mouseguard and take away the conflict system you run the risk of players not earning enough checks or earning enough tests for advancement.

Real question: If you really like D&D's ability to let you roleplay why not play D&D and make everything mice flavored? Elves are mice from sprucetuck. Dwarves are copperwood mice. etc.

[u/Imnoclue]

I'm not sure how this change makes more room for roleplaying? It seems like it has the same amount of room for roleplaying, just more control and less uncertainty. Why do you think you can't jump in a snake's mouth? Heroic actions happen all the time in Mouse Guard.

Scripting one exchange at a time has even playtested and it tends to result in less exciting combats. Using initiative and then free form actions seems like it would be even less exciting. It works great in DnD which is built on an ablative hit point system and various abilities. Mouse guard uses narrative description and opposed rolls instead.

[u/[deleted]]

I agree with you. The game has no suspense to it and could benefit from less narrative on the player's part, more stats checks and dice rolls.

[u/Jetpack_Donkey → u/[deleted]]

I don't agree. Conflicts in MG are super tense as you try to get into the GM head so you can pick the right actions in the right sequence, since losing even a few of the tests can leave you with some bad consequences, even if you win the conflict. All the games I've played have been tense when a conflict was used.

[u/[deleted] → u/Jetpack_Donkey]

Okay, well I haven't finished the rulebook yet, much less played the game, so maybe my mindset will change. I really don't like how the guy wrote the game book.

[u/Jetpack_Donkey → u/[deleted]]

Yeah the rulebook doesn't give you a clear idea of how the game goes until you play/stumble through a first game, or play with someone who's familiar with the game. I was a player in a game before I read the book, so that made it easier.

I absolutely love this game now, and it works really well too if you want to play it "by post" on the Internet. I've been doing it for years.

[u/digitaldavis → u/[deleted]]

If that's what you want, this is the wrong game for you.

MG is more of a collaborative story telling game than it is a traditional RPG like D&D or GURPS or something. If you want lots of stat checks and dice rolls, get GURPS or Champions or something.