The Player's Observation
One of the choices for Take A Powerful Blow is (Basic Moves sheets/book p71):
- you lash out verbally: provoke a teammate to foolhardy action or take advantage of your Influence to inflict a condition
The book text then explains that if you choose this "lashing out verbally" option, then only the doing of one of those two "actions" satisfies its requirements. The example play (bottom p72) cuts off just as the Doomed player chooses Provoke.
But both Provoke… and Take Advantage of your Influence are, if you will, "big m" Moves in their own right! They have their own rules and procedures. There are even modifiers added here, stipulations for each, presumably to keep the sometimes-varying results instead firmly negative: your Provoke… must be "to foolhardy action", and your Take Advantage… must be "to inflict a condition".
I'll include it as a fake quote (don't go looking for it). A player noted that the bullet point could read…
- you lash out verbally at a teammate: criticize them until they mark a condition, or instigate conflict until they do something foolish that they would not have done otherwise
…but it doesn't. It instead uses specific language from rules we know. So I think it's pretty clear this OOC choice does trigger a full-fledged Provoke Someone or Take Advantage Move.
Should we follow through with the full rules of the encompassed Moves when a player chooses to lash out verbally?
Here are just some of the implications if you choose Lash Out Verbally and its parts are full Moves:
- Provoke Someone
- tell the GM what you're trying to get them to do; here it must qualify as "foolhardy action"
- requires you to roll, which could be a miss; so they wouldn't do it, plus the GM may move
- even if you roll a hit, against a PC it allows for "if they don't do it." Have you really "provoked them to foolhardy action" if they don't do it?
- if they choose to do it, or if we assume the foolhardy action is instead compulsory:
- "if they do it" adds Team to the pool
- the target PC could… what… reject your weak provocation until it's sufficient?
- if they can't reject it, you have carte blanche for the foolhardy action, stripping the target player's agency and autonomy
- Take Advantage of your Influence
- it's a Peripheral Move so there's no second roll, but you must choose the "inflict a condition on them" option
- you must "surrender the Influence you hold over them"
- this invokes your Influence, so it makes your move a candidate for the target PC's Reject Someone's Influence
- if that Reject… roll was a miss, they'd mark your inflicted Condition, and for the Reject… miss the GM would shift their labels, and they would mark a second Condition
Encountering it, and then exploring the concept, we found much of the above to be quite problematic in practice and theory. I feel these are not "house rules" from whole cloth, but perhaps our "house handling" to interpret the ambiguity:
- No additional rolls or choices, just pick Provoke… and the foolhardy action, or Take Advantage and the Condition, trying with each to comply with the spirit of that Move.
- On a hit, Take a Powerful Blow is a negative move. Bad things are supposed to happen.
- If you inflict a Condition, you do give up your Influence.
- Your target is indeed compelled to a foolhardy action you choose, but it must be utterly in line with both established fiction and target PC personality.
- Despite being mandatory, "they do it" and earn a Team for the pool.
- "Be a fan" of your teammate. Don't be a jerk with the foolhardy action. Don't metagame your choice of which Condition to inflict.
- Conversely, it's a forced negative move against a team member, so you may be inclined to lob a dud of a foolhardy action at them; don't or the GM will intervene.
Does that seem appropriate? Have we misinterpreted something pretty clear to be muddy? Are we missing any example-play transcripts that spell out any of these details? Other thoughts or takes on the matter?