My Group Plans to Remove the GM's/Player's Turn

[jason.richardson]

I really wish more time was spent expanding on this concept in the book. Its sort of obvious common sense wise, but its really cool to see it spelled out in this manner, and sometimes a little difficult to see past the actual mechanical structures of the turn breakdowns and mission patterns in the actual pages. Thanks for saying it here in any case.

Yes, me too. The structure of the GM's Turn/Player's Turn isn't as rigid as it seems. I believe that MG sessions should quickly evolve into organic storytelling. My group actually plans to ignore the GM's Turn/Player's Turn structure and just do what feels right at any given moment in the story.

[Daniel H.]

My group actually plans to ignore the GM's Turn/Player's Turn structure and just do what feels right at any given moment in the story.
Really, you should try it as written for two or three sessions, at least to have something on which to base your comparison. Are the other players behind this change?

[Stormtower]

Yes, me too. The structure of the GM's Turn/Player's Turn isn't as rigid as it seems. I believe that MG sessions should quickly evolve into organic storytelling. My group actually plans to ignore the GM's Turn/Player's Turn structure and just do what feels right at any given moment in the story.

There's a little bit of a danger here, and it has to do with the way that the characters improve. Unlike other RPGs, there's no "experience point reward". And aside from the activities in Winter Season, the only way to improve the character is by ticking off those successes and failures.

Which means that the amount of skill/ability tests have to be regulated somehow. And that's what the GM/Player Turn structure tries to control. The GM is able to make every test "worth it" through the limitations that the structure puts on how many times a player can actually roll the dice.

If you take that structure away, you may have a harder time deciding if the players are just throwing tests around for the sake of speeding up their skill/ability advancement.

[Paul B]

What will players spend their Checks on?

The logical followup: If Checks aren't a resource, do they have any motivation to chase them?

p.

[jason.richardson]

Umm, I didn't start this thread, although it sure looks like I did. How'd that happen?

[Stormtower]

Umm, I didn't start this thread, although it sure looks like I did. How'd that happen?

A moderator probably split off a portion of another thread, accomplishing three things:
-- the original thread isn't derailed by a different discussion
-- the new discussion isn't buried in another thread
-- there's less confusion of which discussion a reply is responding to

It really helps other readers too!

[Stormtower]

What will players spend their Checks on?

I think that's kinda rhetorical -- meaning that the intention may be to completely ignore checks.


The logical followup: If Checks aren't a resource, do they have any motivation to chase them?


There's one other "use" for checks, and that's to recharge the usage of traits.

However, I do understand your point, and I agree with it... This kind of group playstyle (Player's Turn all the time) is more suited to other game systems. I think Aramis is headed in that direction too (he refers to it as "sandbox" games).

[jason.richardson]

Wanderer: yes, I spoke with my players about this; we always discuss things and come to an agreement before applying them. It was a player's idea to try and play the game without the GM's/Player's Turn breakdown. He feels like it constrains his freedom to do whatever he wants his character to do at any given time - which is one of the big selling points for table-top RPGs.

Stormtower: as GM, I will adjudicate which rolls are rewarded by advancement checks. Only tests made in dramatic situations and tests made in ways that will change the story in a significant way, would meet this requirement.

Paul B: in addition to the stuff you can already spend checks on (except for tests, which would no longer be required), players can spend 1 check to add +1D to any significant test rolls OR spend 2 checks to add +1s to any significant test rolls.

Keep in kind we haven't played this way yet, we're just thinking we might try it next time.

Edit: also, I have a question: my Burning Wheel books are on the way so I haven't read them yet, but does BW break the game into GM/Player's Turns?

[luke]

He feels like it constrains his freedom to do whatever he wants his character to do at any given time - which is one of the big selling points for table-top RPGs.

Ah yes, one of my favorite RPG fallacies. There are precious few RPGs in which this is actually true. Come to think of it, I can't think of one good example.

For the rest of RPG-dom, this is a mantra that we repeat as we play our alignment, for our class, supported by our proficienies in our faux fantasy world.

[jason.richardson]

Ah yes, one of my favorite RPG fallacies. There are precious few RPGs in which this is actually true. Come to think of it, I can't think of one good example.

For the rest of RPG-dom, this is a mantra that we repeat as we play our alignment, for our class, supported by our proficienies in our faux fantasy world.

I think you know what I'm talking about, but I'll try to clarify.

In the GM's Turn a player can't go about doing whatever he wants. He can't say, "Hey, on our way to Sprucetuck I want to stop and see if I can purchase some elixirs." The GM has to say, "No, you can't do that right now."

That has nothing to do with limitations based on alignment, class, etc. It has everything to do with the GM/Player's Turn system.

[Paul B]

Idea that might help clarify: Think of the GM's turn as "playing to your team membership." Much in the same way as you might constrain your own choices when playing to an alignment or any other fictional inside-the-RPG affiliation.

It'll feel different inside your head, of course: When you're playing to alignment (or whateva), you're choosing to do so. During the GM's turn it'll feel like you have no choice in the matter. But the net result is the same.

I think it'd be very similar to a system in which, say, there were swaths of time in-game in which you simply could not break alignment, or you simply had to carry out orders from your Noble House, or whatever.

A more practical thought: Keep the GM's turn *short*. Long enough for players to rack up 3-4 checks apiece (a secret: check-earning and condition-setting is the only real function of the GM's turn). I guarantee they'll have more checks than they need when it comes to their turn. Of course, between the short GM turn and the high-ish Checks target, they'll be strongly motivated to trigger their Traits. But, since it sounds like you *also* have players who have no interest in complicating their characters' lives via Traits, that won't work.

If you opt out of the MG economy, it's no surprise that it doesn't work.

p.

[luke]

I think you know what I'm talking about, but I'll try to clarify.

In the GM's Turn a player can't go about doing whatever he wants. He can't say, "Hey, on our way to Sprucetuck I want to stop and see if I can purchase some elixirs." The GM has to say, "No, you can't do that right now."

That has nothing to do with limitations based on alignment, class, etc. It has everything to do with the GM/Player's Turn system.

What a strange thing to assert! The player can absolutely say that. In turn, the GM is obligated to offer, "The path to Sprucetuck is washed out, make an Ob 4 Pathfinder test." Or, "En route to Sprucetuck, you hear plaintive cries settling through the branches. There's a lost mouse out there! Make an Ob 3 Scout test to find her."

Mouse Guard gives you the tools to make life interesting, rather than just another shopping trip.

-L

[jason.richardson]

What a strange thing to assert! The player can absolutely say that. In turn, the GM is obligated to offer, "The path to Sprucetuck is washed out, make an Ob 4 Pathfinder test." Or, "En route to Sprucetuck, you here plaintive cries settling through the branches. There's a lost mouse out there! Make an Ob 3 Scout test to find her."

Mouse Guard gives you the tools to make life interesting, rather than just another shopping trip.

-L

OK, got it. Thanks.

[Daniel H.]

I have a question: my Burning Wheel books are on the way so I haven't read them yet, but does BW break the game into GM/Player's Turns?
No, but at it's core it has the same ideas about only rolling dice when it's important. Burning Empires has a scene economy that sort of bridges Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard.


In the GM's Turn a player can't go about doing whatever he wants. He can't say, "Hey, on our way to Sprucetuck I want to stop and see if I can purchase some elixirs." The GM has to say, "No, you can't do that right now."
Or, not to undermine Luke, here, but there's a reason the player's not supposed to be able to pick up elixirs whenever he wants to. It's part of the feel of Mouse Guard. When on a mission in the GM's Turn, time is always of the essence and resources are always scarce.

[jason.richardson]

Thanks Daniel and everyone else. Your comments are helpful.

Paul: where do you get that my players "have no interest in complicating their characters' lives via Traits"? They most certainly do. They really embrace that aspect of traits and have used them in both sessions to enrich the story and increase everyone's enjoyment of the game. Maybe you should ask before you make such assumptions.

[Paul B]

Yipes! Totally my bad. There's been a lot of MG chat lately and I got you confused with someone else (and it's not at all an unusual condition for players to find themselves in -- earn checks only when it means absolutely no risk to themselves).

p.

[jason.richardson]

Yipes! Totally my bad. There's been a lot of MG chat lately and I got you confused with someone else (and it's not at all an unusual condition for players to find themselves in -- earn checks only when it means absolutely no risk to themselves).

p.

OK Paul - thanks for the explanation. No hard feelings.

[Serpine]

I think we have the core issue in the debate coming out here: Everybody is interpreting how much structure (free will wise) the GM turn is supposed to be differently. The book seems to imply a very tight structure were you are presented specific choices in a specific order only branching on test failures. Some interpret this as a specific series of events, or a specific series of problem areas, but generally the interpretation is you can not just go shopping on the way to what you are trying to accomplish or choose to ignore the mission altogether. Others (including the game author in this thread) instead seem to have the perpective that the players can set their own course, inrerupting or even ignoring the presented mission or even looking for things to do on their own, in which case new events are generated on the fly by the GM. In another thread it seemed Luke indicated he defined the low-choice structure in the book as a training tool for when you broke into a purely free form structure, which could be the source of some if the confusion.

The basic point is, if the GM turn us supposed to be open path then experiments to remove it likely are not needed and people saying "MG is supposed to be played this special hard-core way in the GM turn" are needlessly stressing the free form supporters out.

[Stormtower]

The basic point is, if the GM turn us supposed to be open path then experiments to remove it likely are not needed and people saying "MG is supposed to be played this special hard-core way in the GM turn" are needlessly stressing the free form supporters out.

Agreed. I apologize if I've stressed the by-the-book. I just think the "hard core" rules should be given more than one or two sessions before the group starts to tweak it. Mouse Guard is soooo different from other RPGs.

Think about it, just the basic premise is entirely different.

In many other RPGs, we're used playing characters like "humans-at-the-top of the food chain". We're used to having technology (and magic, in many cases) at our character's beck and call. We're used to having self-sufficient and independent characters.

In Mouse Guard, the characters are near the bottom of the food chain. There's barely any technology, and certainly no magic. And the main reason the patrol will be able to overcome the obstacles is through teamwork -- the patrol members lean on each other for support.

[Serpine]

The thing is, I don't really think the premise is a factor here. There have been plenty of rpgs with relatively weak characters that have to rely on teamwork and even D&D can go that way depending in setting and character level. I honestly think the MG mechanics would work great for a super hero game if there was a setting factor to handle the conflict Nature represents (the Taint that afflicts supers in the game Abberant comes to mind). The basic question, how forced are you to cleave to the mission event script by the letter and/or the intent of the rules during the GM turn? Do you need to break the game to go off mission during the GM turn, or is that an inherent expectation of advanced play? If the players can always choose their direction in the GM turn and the true definition of their turn is actually "when they get to define story events rather then look for the GMs" then it requires some different perspectives.

[luke]

In another thread it seemed Luke indicated he defined the low-choice structure in the book as a training tool for when you broke into a purely free form structure, which could be the source of some if the confusion.

I did NOT SAY THAT. No, not, never, uh uh.

What I advocate is playing the game holistically. Play the game and include all of the parts -- Beliefs, Goals, Instincts, Missions, Obstacles, Conflicts. If you do that, and follow the instructions of the game, you will find that the game encourages creating situations that are important to the players and building on them, one after another.

I know that the beginning of the book is boring. Everyone knows what Mouse Guard is about, so it's easy to skip. But page 8, first paragraph, is very important.

The GM's job is not to day dream up a cool animal to fight. The GM's job is to challenge the players' Beliefs through obstacles so that the players have an opportunity to take a heroic stand.

This game isn't about missions or the GM. It's about giving the players the chance to fight for what they believe in. If you're not creating obstacles, using conditions or invoking twists in service of that goal, then you are playing wrong.

Lastly, If you want to play free form, you don't need to pay $35 for the Mouse Guard RPG. You can just take the comic and make up your own stories with your friends.

-L

[Stormtower]

(edit: Luke finished typing up his reply before I submitted mine. So the comments below did not have Luke's latest response accounted for.)


The basic question, how forced are you to cleave to the mission event script by the letter and/or the intent of the rules during the GM turn?

Wait wait ... the two of us have been reading the same set of threads over the past 2 weeks, I think. So this may make a lot of sense to just the two of us, and completely confuse every other reader. Aramis and Wanderer may know what we're driving at, but I think they also have a lot more practical experience to apply.

Anyway, let me take a step back and just reflect on some of the things I remember. (Serpine, the rest of this post is really not directed to you, but to all the other new people to MG.)

Take is as coming from one formerly-blind person speaking to other blind people about a miraculous cure! "Look, I once was blind, but now I see! I don't claim to be an expert on theology, but my life has certainly changed!"

I think a lot of it actually came from reading Luke Crane's reactions to various discussions. I'll try to add in references to threads if that is necessary. Right now, I'm operating on memory.

The only time that the "plot" of the story is completely in the GM's control is on the very first session the group gets together. It is possible that the GM and the players talked about what kind of game they'll play prior to that first session; but for most of us who just started playing Mouse Guard, we're following one of the three sample missions.

So, for something like 2 sessions, depending on how many iterations of GM/Player turns it takes, the GM's turn would be based on a plot that the GM has near-absolute control.


Now ... as Luke Crane pointed out in some other thread ... the GM starts collaborating with the Players once the initial mission is completed and the first Player's Turn starts. If you look at those sample missions in the book, they all stop after describing the very short list of obstacles and twists. What happens next is really up to how the players pick up the story on the Player's Turn.

Just for example, take the Grain Peddler mission. The only thing that didn't have any input from the players is the initial set of obstacles and twists -- the wilderness, the traitor mouse, the snake, and the hidden map. There's no "script" after that. And that big blank page is what the Player's Turn is for. Will the players proceed to Barkstone and investigate there? Will they report back to Gwendolyn instead? The players decide what happens next ...

and it sets up the next GM's turn. The GM can't ignore what happened during the Player's Turn, he has to follow through. So the obstacles and twists that eventually come up during the GM's turn are simply a natural flow from what the Players did during the Player's turn.

At least ... that's the ideal that I've read in the rulebook, and I've seen Luke verify that in at least one thread.


Now, here's the reality: many players are not used to "leading" the storytelling, especially if they're not used to Mouse Guard in the first place! So, instead of pursuing the story by having their characters take an active role in the Player's turn, they take a passive role. They make recovery checks. They go shopping. They do "idle work". And possible one reason they do this is because they expect the GM to continue making up the story (because that's what usually happens in other RPGs). So when the players don't take an active role in the Players Turn, the GM is left "high and dry" on what the players want to pursue.

And that's why I think GMs and players should play more than just 1-3 sessions. People don't pick up "earning more checks" on the first session. GMs don't get into the habit of prompting players to look for alternative solutions on the first session. People confuse "failing the skill test roll" with "failing the mission" (failure just makes the game more interesting in Mouse Guard). It takes some time for the GM to start plotting based on what the Players have already done, rather than on what the GM wants to do.



Do you need to break the game to go off mission during the GM turn, or is that an inherent expectation of advanced play?

Once the dynamic between Player's Turn and GM's turn is working in rhythm, there's no need to "go off mission" during the GM's turn, because (1) the players have had every opportunity to pursue idle work during the Player's turn, and (2) the GM's turn should be based on "expectations" set by the players during the Player's turn.


And I'll end with my usual disclosure ... "Hey, I'm new to Mouse Guard too! If I got any of this wrong, I certainly welcome being corrected. I'll tax my Nature as I obviously had to tap it to get this much out!"

[luke]

Tower's got it.

[Serpine]

Well, since I almost totally agree with what Stormtower just said and likewise agree with most of what Luke said (I don't think accusing people of not reading something or suggesting to existing owners of a product that they should not buy it if they disagree with some element are valid debate strategies, but the rest is good) I'd say my understanding is fine and I just word things differently (I.e. I probably define the term free form differently, I also almost always call blankets sheets). Anyway, the structure as clarified here is how I've pretty much run things in any game system for most of my gaming history, minus specific labeling of some elements. And since the structure provides for player definition of path even in the GM turn, there is no reason to remove the turn structure to permit that freedom as proposed originally in this thread. That's been the point I was hoping would be reached.

[Odie]

Stormtower's managed to articulate in a single post what took me an entire AP thread, and he actually spelled it out, whereas I left it for the reader to infer. Bravo! My hat's off to you.

-B

[Aramis]

Yes, excellently put, Stormtower.

[Serpine]

And what's most intimidating is I'm not sure if he has the book / has played the game much yet. If he is this clear on things now, imagine what he will come up with later. ;)

[Stormtower]

Thanks for all the compliments!

I got the book this past Saturday, but I've probably spent at least an hour in about 4 separate occasions visiting one specific shelf at the bookstore. And I haven't had a chance to play a session yet.

But truly, I owe a lot to all of you on these forums: To all the people who post up their Actual Play sessions; and to all of the people who patiently participate in the discussions. It's the cycle of "read a thread, check the rulebook, seek clarification" that can really speed up learning.

And of course, I think we all owe a lot to Luke ... who can inject just a few words and allow his students to be in awe as it unravels the entire tangle!

[Fox]

Yes excellent explanation Stormtower. And to those thinking that removing the GM's/Player's turn is a good idea? It is not and you are playing the game wrong. You are sadly missing the point and the genius that makes this game tick.

[hansel]

Cool, Stormtower. Helpful. I'm running a one-shot this weekend (I think I'll do Grasslake, since that seems most interesting to me), and have become very nervous about whether or not I can pull it off well, as I haven't RPed or GMed much.

Anyway. It makes a part of my heart happy to see Luke say, "If you do this, you are playing the game wrong."

I fucking hate it when rulebooks say, "But do it however you want! Make it your own game!" You are being a lazy game writer and taking an easy, weak way out.

[Serpine]

I fucking hate it when rulebooks say, "But do it however you want! Make it your own game!" You are being a lazy game writer and taking an easy, weak way out.

I don't really see how acknowledging that people will do whatever they want in their own home with a game makes somebody who just produced hundreds of pages lazy. They just have a different game philosophy. Frankly I think that an attitude that the structure of any game, indeed any thing, is perfect and beyond examination is more troubling.

Not that I'm advocating changing anything without good reason of course.

[Aramis]

Replying to Serpine & Hansel into new thread to avoid serious off topic discussion...

http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=74379#post74379