Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8026496" data-attributes="member: 7016699">Yeah. I misunderstood the brainer move being used.Yup. I agree, the GM was perfectly within the rules and spirit of the game to make that choice. In the example of play, there's no real indication why Isle is willing to accept such grievous harm in order to resist, and the player seems surprised, which kinda indicates maybe there's nothing previous in the fiction to indicate it, or maybe the player just missed it. In any event, it's a perfectly good GM move, same as having the BurgerMaster call for his guards when a PC insults him.Actually, best I can tell, the point of the move is to give the characters something to react to. There's no way the characters can prevent it, because it doesn't exist in the fiction until the GM makes the move.And I don't think AW looks as transparent from the rules and examples of play therein as all that and all that. All that emphasis on misdirection seems to be pointing in the opposite direction as transparency to me.We are talking about the character, because the character is the reason for and the method of playing the game. Even Adventure World says so, talks about how hot and dangerous and otherwise compelling they are.Exactly so, and the players changing the world by anything other than their characters' actions is meta.So, I'd say that if the GM is running the world properly, their choices should be binding, whether the player wants to make them so or not. That could be considered a principle just as binding as the principles in AW. I'll admit the rules don't have a lot to say explicitly about handling this, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow an WIS (Insight) check to get a read on the BurgerMaster: The PHB says specifically, "Your WIS (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move.". It wouldn't be unreasonable for the insult to be a CHA (Intimidate) check, or if you were trying to make him your enemy it could be a CHA (Persuasion) check to make him more hostile to you (the rules only cover making people friendlier but I see no reason you couldn't choose the opposite). No, there's no mechanism other than resolving an attack for a character to do damage to another, so there's no way for them to hurt the BurgerMaster other than to attack him--which they arguably did, when they tried to grapple him and take him hostage.  The rules are different.</blockquote>

Verification