As the genre founder of leafpunk I decree no airplanes, only DaVinci-esque flying contraptions.
Also: One of my players has expressed the desire for a game that is quote less grim, maybe something light hearted unquote than our Dark Heresy Campaign.
Sensing my chance to strike here for a mouse-based RPG.
EDIT: So what I really want to know here is - how close to a WoD style system is this? Is character creation all about combat, more about socializing, or can it swing either way?
it's not your typical roleplaying game - people who are mainly used to more mainstream games might scratch their head a little bit. That's Luke Crane for you.
the meat of the game is centered around Contests, wherein you try to conquer some sort of obstacle. It could be animals, other mice, or the very seasons.
to continue my post from earlier: the game is definitely not your typical game. it's rather structured.
when beginning play, your GM assigns your group a Mission. after the mission is assigned... the GM takes over and basically makes Hell for our intrepid Mice through conditions such as Hungry, Tired, or even Angry. they make checks and tests and basically overcome the obstacles you set in front of them.
This is called the GM's Turn. yes, it's capitalized and regimented. Once they've conquered their tasks and reached relative safety... then it's the Players' Turn. here, it basically is their time to recuperate from their wounds and pursue their own agendas.
The idea is, I believe, to enforce the feeling that in the wilderness, there is the mission, and the guardmice, despite being heroes, are very seldom in control. while they may overcome adversity, the wilderness is rough and tumble and you have to be quick on your feet.
Sounds very episodic in structure, so we're not looking at a traditional turn-based combat system or anything, but something less regimented (and simultaneously more) that's based around a dice pool system.
So say our intrepid heroes must overcome an aforementioned challenge, a "lake" caused by a freak rainstorm, and get to an island where there may or may not be mice civilians under attack by spiders.
How would they go about this.
I think what I'm looking for is a generalized example of play.
I'm not sure if this is something that is common in other games, but I rather liked that even if you fail a contest you can still maybe succeed at the GM's discretion by taking on the Tired or Sick condition or what have you.
It seems like things like that make it a really easy game to guide as a GM, you have a lot of creative control over the wheres and whats while the players worry more about the hows and whys. It's a pretty elegant system I think.
it's a sort of back-and-forth storytelling mode, actually. once the players reach the relative safety of town (after they succeed or fail at their Mission during the GM's Turn) it's their time to pursue their own agendas, whether that be conversing with an old friend, seeking guidance from their Mentor, or whatever happens to be their Goals.
from the book:
The GM’s Turn ends under one of three circumstances: when the patrol has completed its mission, when the patrol reaches a safe haven or during downtime on an extended mission. At that point, the GM hands the reins over to the players.
It seems to me that this game would suffer the same limitation as Storyteller, in that the quality of the game is directly related to the quality of the GM.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Sounds very episodic in structure, so we're not looking at a traditional turn-based combat system or anything, but something less regimented (and simultaneously more) that's based around a dice pool system.
So say our intrepid heroes must overcome an aforementioned challenge, a "lake" caused by a freak rainstorm, and get to an island where there may or may not be mice civilians under attack by spiders.
How would they go about this.
I think what I'm looking for is a generalized example of play.
Very good question! here's how you'd do it.
Your mission would be to rescue the helpless mice on the makeshift island.
Their first obstacle would be the lake itself. If you were feeling nice, you could point them at some skills they could try using, or you could sit back and ask them "What do you do?"
Once they've decided/roleplayed on their course of action, they make their test. If they succeed, they cross the lake.
But what happens if they fail? Here's where it gets interesting: the GM could use this to introduce a twist in the story. Perhaps they make it across the lake, but are trapped themselves. Or... the GM, as was mentioned earlier, could allow them to succeed... but the Guardmice take a condition.
"You've crossed the lake safely, however, Thomas, you are Tired because of the choppy waters making rowing difficult. Alexandra, you're Angry because the oars broke." These conditions have actual mechanic impacts on the tests and checks you make, and make your Mission more difficult.
All conflicts proceed in a similar manner, even combat.
It seems to me that this game would suffer the same limitation as Storyteller, in that the quality of the game is directly related to the quality of the GM.
that sort of statement is the most bland and general statement you could make about any game out there.
shitty GMs will make games shitty. so will shitty players.
It seems to me that this game would suffer the same limitation as Storyteller, in that the quality of the game is directly related to the quality of the GM.
that sort of statement is the most bland and general statement you could make about any game out there.
shitty GMs will make games shitty. so will shitty players.
You know what I mean, though. With crunchier systems, a mediocre GM can always just throw combat at the party. With this type of system, even mediocre or halfway-decent GMs will run a shitty game.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
It seems to me that this game would suffer the same limitation as Storyteller, in that the quality of the game is directly related to the quality of the GM.
that sort of statement is the most bland and general statement you could make about any game out there.
shitty GMs will make games shitty. so will shitty players.
You know what I mean, though. With crunchier systems, a mediocre GM can always just throw combat at the party. With this type of system, even mediocre or halfway-decent GMs will run a shitty game.
I guess. I would still call that crunchier game where the GM 'just throws combat' at the party pretty shitty. :P
to prove you wrong though:
Marshmallow is right. the game seems very easy to GM for. It relies on both the players AND the GM however to be on their feet. For the GM, you have to think of a mission, and then just put things in the way. As you phrase it, maybe 'just throw some combat'. Since combat isn't really round-by-round though, you have to insert other things. Maybe the bridge on the way is out. Maybe a tree has fallen over the road.
the game is about braving the wilderness and doing your job.
when it comes to the Player's Turn though, they can't just sit around and ho-hum. If they made their characters right, they've got Goals they want to accomplish, and now is the time to do it.
Combat seemed way different from the rest of the game to me, actually. You decide on a goal as usual, yes, but then you split the mice players into teams of two or three with a leader to decide the teams actions. Then the leader picks a set of three actions consisting of one/any of the Attack, Defend, Feint, or Maneuver actions, each of which interacts in different ways with not only the enemy's action but with your other friendly team's actions as well.
It just seemed rather complicated and unintuitive compared to the rest of the system.
Well, honestly, that's your call as a GM as to how violent. you could run a perfectly viable Mouse Guard game where you very seldom have to draw your sword, instead focusing on Obstacles around rescue, escorting, trail-blazing and the like.
death is basically handled as the goal of a particular conflict. To kill or be killed, those generally have to be the stakes. There are no 'random' deaths - when you go into a conflict, everyone beforehand knows if their life is on the line.
Imagine this: It’s raining hard. A rivulet has formed outside Elmoss, blocking the main road. This rivulet is rising fast. A grain shipment for the town is stuck on the far side, in danger of being swept away. Your cousin, another guardmouse, is trapped on a branch in the middle of the rivulet. You only have time to save one before the other is swept away. What do you do?
this is a sample from the text as a perfect obstacle that presents a meaningful choice to the player.
So apparently this is based on the Burning Wheel system, anyone happen to know anything of that because I've never heard of it and can't seem to find much about it.
start here. I'm actually not a fan of burning wheel (and if Luke reads this please don't void those commission checks in the mail), but it has many many rabid fans.
Posts
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Also: "Ever since the War in 1149 against the Weasel Lord Rampaul..." clearly Redwall.
hey hater
shut your filthy fuckin mouth
Levels in Loremouse + levels in Sciencemouse = A deer runway for a mouse airplane.
FUCK YEAH!
could we
maybe
talk about the actual game and the actual setting, and not constantly bring up redwall and/or mousebombs/mouseplanes?
please?
Also: One of my players has expressed the desire for a game that is quote less grim, maybe something light hearted unquote than our Dark Heresy Campaign.
Sensing my chance to strike here for a mouse-based RPG.
EDIT: So what I really want to know here is - how close to a WoD style system is this? Is character creation all about combat, more about socializing, or can it swing either way?
pretty damn violent, in fact.
Okay, but first: what is Redwall? I don't get the context.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Redwall is a fantasy book about woodland animals.
Similar premises, but pretty different in execution.
it's not your typical roleplaying game - people who are mainly used to more mainstream games might scratch their head a little bit. That's Luke Crane for you.
the meat of the game is centered around Contests, wherein you try to conquer some sort of obstacle. It could be animals, other mice, or the very seasons.
Hrm, the RPG book + graphic novel compilation 1 on amazon for cheaper than your average RPG sourcebook.
This tempts me greatly.
EDIT: GREATLY I SAY.
when beginning play, your GM assigns your group a Mission. after the mission is assigned... the GM takes over and basically makes Hell for our intrepid Mice through conditions such as Hungry, Tired, or even Angry. they make checks and tests and basically overcome the obstacles you set in front of them.
This is called the GM's Turn. yes, it's capitalized and regimented. Once they've conquered their tasks and reached relative safety... then it's the Players' Turn. here, it basically is their time to recuperate from their wounds and pursue their own agendas.
The idea is, I believe, to enforce the feeling that in the wilderness, there is the mission, and the guardmice, despite being heroes, are very seldom in control. while they may overcome adversity, the wilderness is rough and tumble and you have to be quick on your feet.
So say our intrepid heroes must overcome an aforementioned challenge, a "lake" caused by a freak rainstorm, and get to an island where there may or may not be mice civilians under attack by spiders.
How would they go about this.
I think what I'm looking for is a generalized example of play.
It seems like things like that make it a really easy game to guide as a GM, you have a lot of creative control over the wheres and whats while the players worry more about the hows and whys. It's a pretty elegant system I think.
from the book:
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Very good question! here's how you'd do it.
Your mission would be to rescue the helpless mice on the makeshift island.
Their first obstacle would be the lake itself. If you were feeling nice, you could point them at some skills they could try using, or you could sit back and ask them "What do you do?"
Once they've decided/roleplayed on their course of action, they make their test. If they succeed, they cross the lake.
But what happens if they fail? Here's where it gets interesting: the GM could use this to introduce a twist in the story. Perhaps they make it across the lake, but are trapped themselves. Or... the GM, as was mentioned earlier, could allow them to succeed... but the Guardmice take a condition.
"You've crossed the lake safely, however, Thomas, you are Tired because of the choppy waters making rowing difficult. Alexandra, you're Angry because the oars broke." These conditions have actual mechanic impacts on the tests and checks you make, and make your Mission more difficult.
All conflicts proceed in a similar manner, even combat.
that sort of statement is the most bland and general statement you could make about any game out there.
shitty GMs will make games shitty. so will shitty players.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
You know what I mean, though. With crunchier systems, a mediocre GM can always just throw combat at the party. With this type of system, even mediocre or halfway-decent GMs will run a shitty game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Hungry/Thirsty
Tired
Angry
Injured
Sick
they all give different penalties to different contests, and you can have all of them if your GM is feeling mean. :P
I guess. I would still call that crunchier game where the GM 'just throws combat' at the party pretty shitty. :P
to prove you wrong though:
Marshmallow is right. the game seems very easy to GM for. It relies on both the players AND the GM however to be on their feet. For the GM, you have to think of a mission, and then just put things in the way. As you phrase it, maybe 'just throw some combat'. Since combat isn't really round-by-round though, you have to insert other things. Maybe the bridge on the way is out. Maybe a tree has fallen over the road.
the game is about braving the wilderness and doing your job.
when it comes to the Player's Turn though, they can't just sit around and ho-hum. If they made their characters right, they've got Goals they want to accomplish, and now is the time to do it.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
It just seemed rather complicated and unintuitive compared to the rest of the system.
I have cousins you see...
EDIT: I know it's not an apt comparison, but they love redwall.
http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/07/06/08_mices5_full.jpg
http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Petersen%20Mouse%20Guard%20crab%20fighting.jpg
these are about the limit of violence
Interesting, turns out that a friend of mine has the compilation of the first five or something comics. I think I'll give them a read.
I think this will be a buy later this week. 23 bucks on amazon.
death is basically handled as the goal of a particular conflict. To kill or be killed, those generally have to be the stakes. There are no 'random' deaths - when you go into a conflict, everyone beforehand knows if their life is on the line.
this is a sample from the text as a perfect obstacle that presents a meaningful choice to the player.
luke should cut me a commission for moving product! :P
(i just ordered it too from barnes and noble...)
Got both the RPG rulebook and the graphic novel Vol 1 for $42. In other words, two books for the average price of a DnD rule book? I'll do it.
start here. I'm actually not a fan of burning wheel (and if Luke reads this please don't void those commission checks in the mail), but it has many many rabid fans.