I want to begin with a sincere apology about some behavior years ago when I was asking a question regarding the rule: No Weasels. I was behaving as a bully and allowed my frustration to turn into anger.
After several years serving as a GM in Mouse Guard. I really understand more fully the difficulty in describing this rule. I’m not certain I could answer my question from years ago; in fact, I’m fairly certain I cannot provide a very complete answer to my question.
I certainly do not have actual play examples of the rule impacting decisions or rulings.
Sorry to everyone for my rudeness years ago. I was just reflecting recently on past behavior, and felt it would be worthwhile to offer this apology.
In response to the rule, I think I have a description of how it can be implemented, despite that I have never seen an example in actual play.
There is a specific rule to avoid players debating the determination of the GM once the ability, skill or wise has been announced; players may consider alternate strategies which would require a different test, but should not attempt to redirect the stated plan towards another ability, skill, or wise. That is what the, “No Weasels!” rule means. First, the players agree on the strategy; then, the GM decides the test. That’s the final decision.
That is my description. If the group has made the plan, then the GM determines the test. Once that is fulfilled, the players cannot try to test other attributes in place of the ruling (aside from using Nature for skills not yet learned).
I think the appropriate moment for this rule is when a player wants to substitute a skill they have, rather than a skill they lack.
I believe I have not seen this in actual play; because, I have always had a good group of players. They realize and embrace that failure, and the complications of failure, will drive the story forward in exciting and fun ways. Rather than fear anything less than the highest advantage, they tolerate difficulty and risk.