The Mouse Guard Roleplaying Game · 2:44pm Feb 25th, 2016
I was writing a blog post about one subject, and in the middle I had an epiphany about an entirely different subject. I'm putting the former on hold so I can write the latter first.
this turned out to be rather long, so I sure hope you're interested in FANTASY MICE. not Fluttershy's mice. 
Mouse Guard is a comic about swashbuckling mice with swords. But it's totally not Redwall, because it's not trying to be Tolkien. these mice are actually mouse-sized, and they have these medieval rangers to protect their tiny civization from the many, many things in nature that tend to kill mice. (did you know squirrels are omnivores and will eat baby mice if given a chance? I wonder why that never happened in Redwall novels 
)
There's a tabletop RPG based on this comic. I think it won some awards. I bought the game book mostly for the beautiful artwork... I don't have any friends who will play tabletop RPGs with me. but I learned something from this book. something more interesting than the squirrel-diet trivia above.
I'd say every game teaches its players something, and RPGs are games. They're not just guidebooks full of setting information and ~worldbuilding~ 
but they have rules, and you can't just toss out the rules. If you don't want books and dice, you can just roleplay in MLP chat rooms on the internet and have complete freedom, but that's not the type I'm talking about.
Gonna go rambling a bit with a few examples here. Dungeons & Dragons, the classic that never dies. A descendent of strategic war games, but you only have 1 tiny meeple to watch over, so you might as well identify with that individual. The important part is you have a character sheet, and on that paper your character has 6 ability scores. 3 physical, 2 mental, and 1 social (though Charisma often has questionable utility). From there, you note down more physical traits such as attack rolls and hit points, and mental traits such as saving throws and spells. That's about all we need to define a D&D character! Time to roleplay!
At its core, D&D is a game about fighting monsters and capturing treasure. In its early form, the only ways you earned experience points were from (1) killing and (2) loot. Acting in-character and creating a story is optional, but not required. You don't need social skills, just a good tactical mind (leading to amusing stereotypes about these types of gamers. 
gotta admit, they're doing exactly what the game asks of them). I know later editions added on a lot of stuff and flavor to expand the game beyond pure dungeon-crawling, but it always felt inelegantly tacked-on to me. The game still revolves around those 6 ability scores from the beginning.
The game teaches its players to approach these tactical scenarios and figure how to efficiently solve them. and there can be endless scenarios because they're delivered by the Dungeon Master. the DM gets feedback from those character sheets, and can create (or purchase) a challenge suitable for that party's strengths and weaknesses. Experience levels, but also say a lack of magic. This must've been addicting in those days before videogames could imitate that style of play.
next example, probably almost as famous as the above - Vampire: the Masquerade. it aimed for something different in the RPG rules itself, and it succeeded in attracting a different audience from the D&D geeks. and not just because of the obvious subject matter!
in this game, I'll once again look at the character sheet. there 9 attributes, divided into 3 columns: Physical, Social, and Mental. and after that there's 30 abilities, divided into 3 columns: Talents, Skills, and Knowledges. Notice how right away there's different emphasis from D&D, which devoted half the character sheet to physical scores. This is a game with a more balanced spread, even though each individual will be better in one particular column of choice. It fits the setting, as combat in VtM tends to be pretty easy. You're more likely to be destroyed by messing with vampire politics, or maybe some forgotten piece of ancient knowledge.
There's other stuff on the sheet, but one important part is where you write down Nature/Demeanor/Concept. Using a few basic tropes er I mean archetypes, you sum up what the character is about, completely detached from gameplay rules. But it's not some superfluous detail like D&D alignments. You get experience points for roleplaying, not for killing. There are Willpower rewards for reaffirming your character's nature. Thus, the entire game is actually about character acting! And instead of a DM, you have the Storyteller, who creates a story for the characters to react to.
The game teaches players how to create a well-rounded character, not just a combat machine. The character sheets give the Storyteller feedback on what kind of story would suit them. Once again, endless possibilities come forth from their shared imaginations. The rules even suggest ignoring rules when they'd get in the way of good drama. It's no wonder that they later trimmed down the numbers and dice even further to convert it into a LARP system, which I believe is almost as popular as the tabletop version. maybe more so.
that's enough obvious history, most of you probably already played those, so back to Mouse Guard. On first glance, I thought it was meant for those new to RPGs, by the way many rules seem to be handholding and seemingly restrictive. Maybe partially true that it's aimed at newcomers, but it seemed popular with veterans too. I had to read some of the "restrictive" rules several times to figure out the clever reasons behind them.
I don't want to go through the entire character sheet like I did above, it has very few numbers anyway. and I can't pin it down to a ratio system, for reasons that will be clear later. I'll pick out some of the examples from the rules. How about the line for writing down Character Traits? Here's a few example trait descriptions I copied from the book:
Quick-Witted
A quick-witted mouse acts on instinct, without need for thought or consideration. While this attribute is clearly useful, it can lead to difficulties when patience and planning are required.Deep Ear
Mice with the Deep Ear trait have keen hearing, but it does make them susceptible to loud noises and the general din of the big cities.
They're kinda like talents/flaws from other games, except both at different times. A player may use them as a limited boost to related dice rolls, naturally. But they may also use them to hinder themselves on dice rolls if they choose. Woah, why would you make the game harder for yourself?! There's a reward: players can earn "checks" to use later in the game, during the Players' Turn. There's a limit on using it to help, but you can hinder yourself as many times as you like. Obviously, this is to prevent min-maxing gamers. You know they'll pick out a bunch of minor irrelevant flaws, to earn more points for always-useful powers. What if they were one and the same? and the GM didn't have to "remind" you about your flaws, but you voluntarily invoked them yourself?
THUS I MAXIMIZE MY DISADVANTAGES AND MINIMIZE MY POWERS! (BURST INTO FLAMES)
Oh yeah, the Player's Turn. That alternates with the GM's Turn, each of which can last a few hours. The GM's Turn is when the GM throws various dangers and obstacles at the players to see if they survive, kinda common. The GM is in total control. After that, when the characters reach a town or city and plan their next move, the Players' Turn begins. The players can use the "checks" they earned to perform actions. Basically, they get to steer the game in the direction they find interesting. Then back into the hazardous wilderness for the GM's Turn.
This seemed awfully restrictive at first. Shouldn't roleplaying be more relaxed and freeform than that? But actually, it does seem to strike a nice balance between GM railroading vs Players going completely off the rails. Let both sides trust each other, and each get their turn, each giving feedback to the other. Interesting. Obviously, some groups of players have great chemistry and don't need this "hand-holding," but I'd guess that the vast majority end up with a lot of quiet tension. Especially if they're strangers who each came to the game expecting something slightly different. Mouse Guard already lays out in the rules what you can expect in player freedom, and turns it into a fun challenge. and it ties back to the previous part with Traits: if you're quiet or passive during the GM's Turn, you'll have much less freedom during the Players' Turn. So pay attention, and actively look for opportunities to roleplay.
(Minor extra bit: when players use their checks, there might be one player who ends up with far more than the others. they can't do consecutive actions, so the rules say they may pass a check to someone with none... or forfeit them all. No matter how great you roleplay, one person can't hog the spotlight! I thought this was a neat way to encourage co-operation over competition, as well as inspiring others by example.)
This game teaches players how to be better roleplayers. It's a collaborative game, so everyone needs a way to know what to expect from each other. Isn't that wonderful? There's a lot of social stress in these kinds of games, and it helps when everyone is working on a similar wavelength. 
At least, that's what I thought for the past few years. I was wrong. I was so wrong!
The Mouse Guard RPG actually teaches its players how to be better story writers. 
Almost all RPGs have pretenses of being collaborative story-telling games, but getting a good story out of them is more of a happy accident. You get fun, friends, and some amusing anecdotes at least. in VtM, the Storyteller provides the story, and you trust that it'll be a good one to play around in. but Mouse Guard is about having ALL the players write the story together, even with everyone wanting something different.
I had to re-examine all the conclusions I had above. you remember the part about Min-Maxers abusing character traits? extra cool powers in exchange for superfluous flaws? that's the exact same way Mary Sues work. 
they're a little bit more "useful" than anyone around them, but they have this FLAW to balance it out, see? see? except that flaw is never much of a challenge to overcome, and isn't used to develop the character. what if we followed Mouse Guard's system of a positive trait also being a flaw? now I'm reminded of well-written characters from good stories. and much like players in the game who must actively look for opportunities to use a trait against themselves, a writer should do the same. don't be passive and let those moments fly past you.
Here's a crucial part of the character sheet that I didn't understand until now: Belief, Goal, Instinct. These aren't mere archetypes like in VtM, you have to actually write down a short phrase for each.
Beliefs: the higher purpose of the character (ex. Kenzie: It's not what you fight, but what you fight for.). for a player, it's a good signpost to remind you how to play your character when you're feeling a little lost. for a GM, it's a target. put that character in situations that challenge that character's belief. will they still believe that when the chips are on the table? and these beliefs can change over time.
Goal: each session, the character has a new short-term goal written down (ex. Kenzie: I must find evidence that will determine if the grain peddler is a traitor or not. / Lieam: I will show Kenzie and Saxon that I am a valuable member of the patrol). each player in the group shares the same mission, but not necessarily the same goal! and this is very useful to the GM, because the mission is what the players HAVE to do, but reading these goals explicitly states what the players WANT to do. THIS is what should be challenged during the GM's Turn, ideally each woven together instead of seperately.
A hero is defined not by what shining gem he ultimately captures, but by what obstacles he overcomes to reach his Goal.
So, when you see a hurdle in your path, run toward it. Don't avoid it. Those obstacles are the moments when you get to define yourself as a hero. Succeed or fail, it doesn't matter.
game advice? or story advice? maybe both.
Instinct: a character's gut reaction (ex. Kenzie: Always consult Saxon when trouble arises. / Saxon: Always draw my sword at the first sign of trouble.). seems pretty obvious for creating a character's fun trademark. for the GM, it's an immediate hook to get everyone roleplaying. the character enjoys situations where they can act on this Instinct. the book advises the GM to make use of it a lot, because it can be entertaining. at first it can be obviously advantageous, but later on there should be situations where it's clearly a bad idea to act this way. that should make the players squirm a little.
players get rewards for roleplaying according to all three of these. interestingly, there are also rewards for failing to achieve a goal, or acting against belief in an interesting manner. that's the key here. it's not about just succeeding at everything, because that can get boring. it's about being interesting.
also there's no experience points in this game, but you can upgrade individual skills. to do this, you need X successful rolls while practicing that skill... and also (X-1) failed rolls. you don't improve when something's too easy, nor way too hard. hrmm.
from all this, I believe Mouse Guard creates some great guidelines for creating a good story. even when you're only one part of the team and have to work with conflicting interests, but everyone is encouraged to be an active part of crafting that story, not just an actor playing a role. I've never seen anything like this in a game rulebook before.
well, there was the boardgame, Tales of the Arabian Nights, but the stories you get out of that end up more like bizarre non-sequitors strung together. go buy that game if you want to write in the RANDOM tag, because I'm not gonna summarize it here.
conclusion: why'd I write a friggin essay about a tabletop game I never actually played? I have several in-progress stories that could've used these 2k words. none of them are about mice, either.
I got to practice editing myself on this post. It was originally twice as long. 
I've only ever played a table top game once, and that was via an online interface. My curiosity has grown over the years, but even so I've never had friends who would be interested. It's a mostly unknown world to me.
That's pretty fascinating about it teaching you good character writing and story telling principles. And you're right: those kinds of internal conflicts between duty and personal desires, strengths and flaws are key to writing engaging, dramatic stories.
3778116
thanks for reading my long rambly post!
I don't have that much experience playing RPGs, but lots of experience with the overall culture I guess. both roleplayers and writers love to complain about cliche Mary Sues. I think it's an easy scapegoat, focusing on individual characters like that. they're more of a symptom of a bad (story structure / group harmony). took me this long to realize that...
One problem I usually had was I'd create a unique, interesting character... and then I'd have no idea what to do with it. I don't want to steal the spotlight or step on others' toes, so I get rather passive. I noticed this was kinda similar to my biggest problem when starting writing, getting some kind of desire or conflict started. I gotta unlearn these bad habits.
This is a great analysis both of game design and of story design, and the ways they interact. Thank you for it.
BRB, signal boosting.
3779395
eee, thanks!
glad it was useful, and that I'm not just stating the obvious
uhoh, others are gonna see me now
3778499
Coming up with character trait driven conflict can be really difficult. Weirdly enough, I have varying levels of difficulty doing this with different characters. Some ponies I have little to no difficulty imagining conflict, and for others it's just very tough.
Speaking of Mary Sues, that reminds me of a video I watched a few years back by mlp reviewer Tommy Oliver/Brony Curious. He gives what I think is the best definition of them. I've adopted it ever since.
I definitely agree. In my opinion, most issues stories have are a result of something conceptual inside the author rather than direct elements of the story, like prose or characters. Those elements might have problems, but I believe their root lies in how the author is thinking about and approaching their story. Structure is I think very reflective of that.
Oh man, Mouse Guard sounds like a far less complex version of Burning Wheel, which I've always wanted to play but it seems soo intimidating. In fact it even uses the Belief/Goal/Instinct system and the traits system you mentioned.
Here's an hour long video explaining the gist of Burning Wheel.
3779900
I don't know much about the rules changes when they simplified it, but the core idea focusing on story seems to be the same.
oh. yeah. it IS Burning Wheel, by the same designer. I forgot to mention that.
3779750
hrm, that video's definition comes pretty close to my idea. though I don't think his defense of Superman is very convincing. and I like Superman.
rather than defining Superman by his antagonists, I'd say he's an interesting character because of his "human" side, such as his Clark Kent persona, relationship with Lois, or his ideals. those aspects lead to some interesting stories. it's funny he didn't mention Kryptonite. everyone knows Superman's weakness, so we know he's not 100% perfect, but everybody knows it's such a boring weakness. the antagonist either has it or doesn't, not much dramatic tension there. and now I think that's an important sign of Mary-Sues, when their obligatory-flaws don't come from their character traits, but instead resemble Kryptonite.
amusingly, in Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman, the hero develops immunity to kryptonite within the first few pages, so the other 99% of the book can focus on real character development. it's the best Superhero comic I've ever read.
I should do analysis videos myself, I'd totally be better than that Tommy Oliver hack
I'll actually note that my own personal impression of "giving people rewards for RPing their characters" is generally that in-game things like checks and suchlike - giving people the ability to gimp themselves intentionally in-character for later bonuses, or to create trouble because of who they are in such a way to later lead to fun times - works well, but giving people permanent awards (i.e. xp) tends to not work out so well. Keeping the whole party on the same level in terms of long-term power boosts tends to work better for creating an enjoyable experience for everyone and avoids leaving people feeling "left out".
I have a friend who adores mouse games, though.
I might as well.
Though I've never actually played in one.
Really, figuring out the particulars of a world/style is important for roleplaying games. Some games are serious. Others are not. I'm playing in a Final Fantasy themed game and a MLP-themed game, and in each world there are sorts of "rules" about how people are supposed to interact with the world. Of course, ironically, my silly character is in the FF game while my more serious (though still kind of silly) character is in the MLP game. BUT THE POINT REMAINS.
3780586
ooh, that's a good point.
suddenly I realize that D&D had a wise reason for the rule of "you may only advance one level per session, no matter how much experience you gain"
of course, the classes had very different power scaling with levels, but still.
3780473
Ah, good point, good point, I agree.
I'll be honest, I've always loved Supes but I don't think I've ever read a single comic of his--just various movies, tv shows, and animations. So you're far more knowledgeable on the topic than I am. I think Tommy Oliver's overall point was that Superman is interesting because he can still be tested, which mostly applies to the idealistic aspect of his character, I think. I mean, his relationship with Lois and other elements of his humanity can test him too, but I think they function primarily in other ways to make him interesting. When it comes to a character's morals, I think they tend to be interesting only so far as they're tested and proven to be false or true. But that's hardly the only thing that makes a character interesting, as you've pointed out. Revealing who a character really is, deep down inside, is just as interesting in my book.
Make those videos all about Celestia and you'll have one super committed viewer :D
Trading flaws for checks risks teaching people to create the Anti-Sue. What causes people to create Mary Sues is that they don't understand that the story is more important than the characters, so without correcting that, someone will end up getting enamoured of all the possible flaws they can have, and end up with a cripple moe mouse waifu. Being sensitive to loud noises is bad if it ruins a good plot point. Being keen of hearing is bad if it ruins a good plot point.
We feel for our characters, and identify with them, but ultimately to be good writers we have to realize that the best thing for a character is not to have them affect the world, but be affected by the world. A story is what happens to us, and how we deal with it. Even if bad things happen to us, the important thing is that interesting things are happening. Without that, we're just bored and lonely.
I think the best systems to teach good storytelling are ones that are advisory rather than authoritative. It's a little scary to go into a campaign running FUDGE, but once you realize that the dice are there to help when you're unsure of what to do, rather than to restrict what you can do, it can be pretty awesome because you can do anything.
Though my absolute favorite kind of "roleplaying" is the collaborative story, where people write it together. I wish I could do that again...