GM Turn, Player Turn?

[Warden]

Hi all :)

What an absolute drop dead gorgeous piece of work MG is.

But I have grave reservations about the implementation of the BW rule system.

Firstly, I'm new to it, I heard there was a bit of crunch and that the whole thing was streamlined for MG. But I'm a bit confused as to whay we need to split the running of the game into GM --> Player --> GM etc turns? Why can't it just flow as per any other game?

Also, I read on page 75 that a player has to spend a check just to get into a conflict with a fellow player's mouse? Finally, also on page 75 (I didn't get past that because of the rulings), it mentions how "twists in the Player's Turn are tricky", it then goes on to describe how to resolve this.

My point, it all seems a bit rules crunchy and pointless.

Help me save MG from gathering dust, because that would be a shame. I love the book, I love the setting, I just think the rules are a but too overly involved.

[Daniel H.]

There have been previous discussions on this topic and people have offered good advice in response to similar reservations.


In addition to what's been said, keep in mind that:

a) By sitting down to play MG, the players are, by definition, on-board with the idea of tackling the mission the GM sets before them;

b) Players are the ones who define their goals, beliefs, and instincts, not to mention traits during chargen (or template selection), and these are the prime drivers used by the GM for twists and conflicts and such;

c) The dice determine who gets what when;

d) The player's turn forces the GM into a reactive role as the players take the reins, something that is fairly unique in RPGs.

So, yeah, the GM gets to push pretty hard during his turn. However, he can't railroad; he can only complicate. On the Player's turn, they get to push, and the GM has to take a back seat.


I've been handing out my $0.02 all day -- at this rate I'll be broke at the end of the day! But my thoughts:

* Yes, the turn structure restricts roleplaying.

* All rules in an RPG restrict roleplaying. That's what they're there for. Probably what feels weird is that turn-based RPing isn't something you've ever done before, so that particular restriction feels...more restrictive than, say, the fact that an untrained fighter can't cast a spell, or that you can't break initiative order and roll your attack just whenever.

Your players will have to decide if they like the impact on play the MG turn system produces. But don't discount it out of hand just because it's novel.


It is a whole lot more organic than that.

Think of the GM's Turn and the Player's Turn as rhythms.

Let's use some Gygaxian rhythms as examples, since you invoked His name.

The GM puts a hallway pit trip in the player's way and they have to use their skills to navigate around it and then they have to fight the orcs.

From the book, page 70:

"The GM will point to certain tests to overcome
obstacles. The players may suggest other tests,
other ways to navigate the situation."

After those two conflicts are resolved (and just because two rolls are what starts resolving them, that doesn't mean all will be finished in two simple rolls), we can take it to the Player's Turn. But, odds are, it won't be two simple rolls. Odds are there will be some twists, making things more complicated.

Once the two conflicts the GM decided when she made the mission up are done, we cut to the Player's Turn.

In Gygaxian terms, this could be the players sealing off the door to a secure room with iron spikes and resting up in order to heal wounds or get their spells back.

But let's see this in Mouse Guard terms.

I ran a game and the two conflicts were a late spring snowstorm and a beaver who had built a dam that flooded Sprucetuck and it was ripping up pieces of the tree town in order to take back to its dam.

There is structure but structure doesn't mean railroad. It doesn't mean the players don't have choices. You know what the two conflicts are going to be but what you don't know is how exactly the players will solve them or who their attempts to solve them will further complicate matters.

The beginning is set (Gygaxian: there is a dungeon with treasure, get to it) but the end is undetermined and that is why there are no rails. In a railroaded adventure, the end-point is known and their choices are not meaningful.

Guardsmice have meaningful decisions to make.

Hope that helps.
If those don't help, let us know and we'll try to address your specific concerns.

[ThisIsVictor]

Firstly, I'm new to it, I heard there was a bit of crunch and that the whole thing was streamlined for MG. But I'm a bit confused as to whay we need to split the running of the game into GM --> Player --> GM etc turns? Why can't it just flow as per any other game?


Not to sound like a tool, but that's kind of the point. It's not any other game, it's MG. The rules promote a certain style of play. (All RPGs do this actually, it's just more blunt in MG.) I haven't played enough MG to actually describe that style of play, though.

--Victor

[Warden]

Thank you all for the replies. It seems like an ordering of events in order to facilitate the rules.

Has anyone got a link to actual gameplay, I mean with this in particular?

Oh quickly whilst I remember, why does a player have to spend a check to have a conflict with another player's character? Why doesn't he just...have the conflict?

[steve]

I dont have the MG book yet (mine is on order) but I imagine it would force players to look at what really matters to them (Beliefs, Goals and Instincts) in the Player's Turn and act accordingly. If that conflict between player mice is really that important they will spend the check, if however removing conditions is more important the conflict with the other player can wait. Think of it as a pacing mechanic, time is of the essence!

[Z-Dog]

I've started to use the framework for MG as my basis for how I do other games. Basically, spend time beating up on the characters and then sit back an let them run things for a while.

It's just a frame. It's adjustable. But it certainly gets me being a more pro-active GM (I'm pretty lazy and would like players to run the whole show, if I could).

[Warden]

May work.

I reminded of a scene, Lord of the Rings, wherein everything goes insane at Helm's Deep (or Moria) then there's a lull wherein characters just sit around recuperating.

[Rafe]

Thank you all for the replies. It seems like an ordering of events in order to facilitate the rules.

Has anyone got a link to actual gameplay, I mean with this in particular?

Oh quickly whilst I remember, why does a player have to spend a check to have a conflict with another player's character? Why doesn't he just...have the conflict?

Just about every actual play write-up for MG that I've seen details actions undertaken in the Players' Turn. Check that forum ("Playing Burning Wheel..."), any MG thread, and you will see what I mean.

I really wouldn't let this idea hamper you. It isn't as... rigid in terms of being a hindrance as I think you fear.

[Irminsul]

Has anyone got a link to actual gameplay, I mean with this in particular?

The grandexperiment (http://grandexperiment.livejournal.com/) blog has some really nice MG examples.

Here (http://grandexperiment.livejournal.com/19325.html#cutid1) is the first post in a series.

[Odie]

Maybe we should sticky this thread, because this question keeps coming up.

I think I might draft up some Actual Play write-ups specifically to address this concern, actually. I've ran 3 sessions of Mouse Guard in the last fortnight as a short break for our regular gaming group, and kept notes intending to turn out an AP post. Perhaps I should write them with an eye toward showing folks how the GM/Player Turn structure plays out. Anyone think that'd be helpful?

-B

Edit: Don't get me wrong; Skywalker's Grandexperiment LJ is a great example. I was talking about something written up as less "plain Actual Play account" and more "this is how the GM/Player's Turn works for the game and not against it".

[Rafe]

Perhaps I should write them with an eye toward showing folks how the GM/Player Turn structure plays out. Anyone think that'd be helpful?

Any type of AP is helpful, in my opinion. One structured specifically to call attention to the structure of GM/Player Turn would be great!

[luke]

Heya Warden,
Momentarily off-topic, what other games do you play?

-L

[Odie]

Any type of AP is helpful, in my opinion. One structured specifically to call attention to the structure of GM/Player Turn would be great!

Well, I've got two of the three sessions written up so far. Tell me what you think! (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7315)

-B