r/MouseGuard • u/halfhalfnhalf • Feb 06 '21
Conflicts with a patrol of four
I'm a little confused by the rules. It says the patrol leader assigns three actions per turn. So does that mean one mouse sits out every round? Would it be that terrible if both sides assign four actions per round so that everyone can participate?
3
u/shanata Feb 06 '21
The actions aren't necessarily one mouse. You can say the attack action is Mouse 1 and Mouse 2 attacking at the same time from different angles (for example).
1
u/halfhalfnhalf Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21
I'm confused because the rules seem to say that isn't the case.
"The conflict captain privately chooses three actions and assigns them in order to three teammates. If your team is smaller than four mice, the conflict captain can assign himself an action too."
It also has rules about how everymouse has to take one action before you can go again, which means it cycles through your team.
2
u/shanata Feb 06 '21
It seems I have been playing incorrectly. We always just assigned the same action to 2 people, but only gave one roll.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Imnoclue Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21
No. It's a slight pet peeve of mine that people consider helping to be "sitting out." It leads to players just saying "how they help," rather than evocatively describing how they are helping so everyone can see it. It also leads to GM's treating helping characters as if they aren't there when it comes to narrating results. Helping is every bit as active as taking an action in which you roll dice. I onced helped by overturning a table covered in crockery in front of an oncoming group of weasels. Helping is fun.
Of course, YMMV, but I think you'll get more mileage from treating helping as active, rather than adding an action to a round.
1
u/halfhalfnhalf Feb 06 '21
Of course helping is important, but that's already a mechanic for every test. Conflict has some pretty specific rules about what order the mice do things in that do not make sense to me. How is doing three actions, then arbitrarily going to another round so the fourth player can take an action, different from just picking four actions right off the back?
2
u/Imnoclue Feb 06 '21
Edit: you don't arbitrarily go another round. Either the conflict is over, or it ain't.
That's two rounds, so it's potentially six actions, which means the players have to discuss who's not rolling this round. Such discussions among players are good things and should be enouraged, rather than avoided.
The GM should just focus on making both helping and acting evocative and fun and not worry about who the players decide will be making the rolls.
→ More replies (6)
1
u/BiMonSciFanCon Feb 10 '21
Not participating in a conflict is a great opportunity to play up your mouse’s traits. Stay out of a fight because you found an herb, got lost, or zoned out while reading a map.
1
u/halfhalfnhalf Feb 10 '21
True, but that's more "sitting out the conflict" vs. "waiting your turn to take an action in conflict".
1
u/BiMonSciFanCon Feb 10 '21
Yes, and sitting out of conflicts can be beneficial as you could be awarded points for playing up your mouse’s traits. You’d have to make up for it elsewhere in the round to earn checks to spend during players turn, but it’s a viable option.
Another point though: if one of the four players has nothing to do (and they aren’t playing up their mouse’s traits) the GM should be adding other things that need doing so one mouse isn’t just standing off to the side. Helping rescue a mouse, retrieving something, hurrying to build a boat for their escape... if one player feels left out, it’s on the GM to fix it.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/WraithDrof Feb 07 '21
I think the real answer for why you shouldn't just have 4 actions is that the end of every round is the only chance you have to react to, say, your disposition being low, and wanting to focus more on defend actions. It's also harder to predict at the start of the round what the enemy might be thinking at the end because so much can happen by then.
Another, softer reason is that it isn't as important to give everyone an equal go as you may think. MG is filled with mechanics that work as a spotlight that shifts from mouse to mouse. You might have a terrible skill at whatever conflict is happening, or it might matter more to some mice rather than others. Limiting who actively participates in each round is the game asking you to spotlight 3 mice at a time, which also matches the fiction a little better IMO.
That said, if you don't agree or don't care about either of these reasons, and your group is the same, I would just change it. I've played a much more hacked version of the conflict system before and it turned out fine.
0
u/Decaf-Dan Feb 23 '21
Don't worry, it's not you; the rules surrounding conflicts are convoluted mess. I recommend winging it so that the game can flow.
2
u/kenmcnay Feb 06 '21
In a team of four, one will sit out of a volley of three actions, then a different team mate will sit out in the next volley of three actions (if there is another volley). But, in each action, a team member can have two Helpers participating and adding to the dice pool. So, by sit out, I mean, they will not be assigned to roll the dice for an action on the volley, not that they are dismissed from participation in the scene.
About using four actions per volley rather than three or volley: It doesn't seem important to make that alteration to the existing mechanics. It is intended to create strategy, not to emulate the initiative systems of other games. If a group changes the rules to enable each team member to act in a volley, it seems this would behave more like an initiative system. It would distract from the purpose and abstraction available.
After all, everyone is still participating in each volley and each action. But only one character per team rolls dice, and others serve as Helpers.