|
When giving a Helping die in Mouse Guard, the trade-off is that one is bound by the success or failure consequences. But how is that a downside in a conflict? Each of the team members is already bound by the consequences of the conflict. Is the intention that every team mate adds a helping die to every other team mate's action, every time they can? There doesn't seem to be any disincentive to do so, unlike regular tests. |
||||
|
|
|
On a personal-scale (mouse) level, team members can only help within their team, but are already bound to the the results for no additional penalty. Note that team helping team level, however, helping still uses the common effect... if you are in Team A, and are helping team B versus weasel-team Z, everyone attacking, and Z wins, both A & B lose disposition. The usual requirements to describe the help are a vital part of keeping the game from going flat; they apply just as much to members of the same team in combat as out. And remember, teaming up is actually part of the game; it is intended that, in conflict, there is no disincentive to helping team mates. |
||||
|
|
|
There isn't a disincentive to do so. However, helping dice are treated as usual: the help must be described and be convincing, or they can't give the help die. There won't be a reasonable and convincing way to help every action in a conflict, but when there is they can go for it. The lack of "extra" consequences isn't really a problem. Sharing in the consequences isn't in the rules so much for tactical reasons as it is to support a solid narrative. The same priority is maintained in the teammate help rules: the narrative requirement of help dice ensure that the unfolding blow-by-blow story hangs together and is interesting. There will still be plenty of consequences from the big-picture conflict, especially if the outcome is a compromise. |
|||
|
|
