Ah, I totally FORGOT that Wises allow players to bring in new facts. I was getting all nervous that I’d have to do that crappy thing that’s like, “roll your knowledge (arcana). If you get a 15, I’ll tell you 2 things, a 20 and I’ll tell you 3 things.” So much better to have the player do it, and more fun.

Oh yes, you could even let the players sort of highjack your entire mission and turn it into something much better.

To be clear, it’s page 33, and it says “In play, wises are tested and advance just like skills. Wises can be used in three ways: You can test to elicit information about a hidden fact from the GM. You can test to bring in a new fact about something in the game that’s relevant to your wise’s area. Or you can use a wise to augment a skill test.”

That second one is pretty big, in my opinion, and it’s a bummer that it’s not explicated a bit more in the book–it’s easy to miss. Anyway, I’m glad I have it straightened out now. I want to push my players to use wises in this way!

I think you’re right, with this caveat: the players can’t just say, in the middle of the GM’s turn, “Oh, I’m making a Weasel-wise test.” That’s Player’s Turn stuff.

However, I’d think that if the players are chattering about different ways to overcome an obstacle, and they can convincingly throw in their Weasel-wise, i.e. “OK, we’re going to sneak into the Weasel camp with Scout, but first I’m going to test Weasel-wise to see if Weasels are generally drunkards.” That seems really allowable to me, but what say you, Luke or more experienced players?

Oh yeah, my bad. The PDF pages are two digits off and I counted it the wrong way. Thanks for the correction.
I to wish it was expounded upon in the book. I wonder if it wasn’t a big deal when he wrote it, but then players started imagining the possabilities and interpreted it that way. Maybe Luke just thought he’d throw it out there in the book and let the players run with it, expand it, and just have fun. I missed it first tiem through as well though.

I disagree, I could be wrong though. I think the players can test any wise in the GMs trun if it is somehow connected with solving the mission, and if the GM is okay with it. There are limits of course. And depending on how they were testing, I might charge 'em checks.

Per the rules on page 33, there are three ways you could handle this in useing your Weasel-wise.

  1. Are Weasels drunkards? roles wise
  2. Character/: "Today is Shiram, the Weasels’ new season celabration. They’ll be drunken to a stupor by now. roles dice
  3. I’m gonna scout by the weasels useing Weasel-wise because I’m smart enough to know that they’ll prolly all be drunk by now anyways. roles Scout with one wise dice

In each case, if the role suceeds, then weasels are drunkards and you may sneak into the camp unnoticed. If you fail your role, then you were wrong about the weasels being drunk and have to face the consequences for your presumptions.

Correct me if I’m wrong please. I’m still just a newbie.

I’m sorry, but…

You make a Roll.

You play a Role.

The two words aren’t interchangeable.

Sorry: I’m not usually a spelling prick.

Sorry, I know I’m a mess. I know the diference. I really do. Sometimes I just type out words without thinking about it.

GM: “You’ve got to sneak into the weasel camp. Test Scout, versus the weasels’.”

Players: “Can we first make a Weasel-wise test to see if weasels are generally drunkards?”

Sounds to me like this falls under p. 70 (and to some extent p. 87 “No Weasels”): the players get to make a suggestion for another tack to take for the obstacle the GM has set before them, and the GM can take it or leave it. So the GM can either say, “Sure, roll Weasel-wise at Ob…” or “No, I can tell you that these weasels are not drunkards. Time to test Scout!”


I know we’re getting a tad off topic, but I think the best way to deal with senarios like this, would be:

Player: I know weasels well enough to know that they’ll all be drunk at this time of night.

Gm decides if he wants to let the player roll the wise and in rolling, the player is putting his faith in his wisdom. He is sneaking right past the drunken weasels. If he succeeds the roll, then he was right and gets by. If he fails, than his wisdom failed him, and the weasels who are not drunk see him, thus bringing on a twist.

I split the thread.

Exactly. That’s how I see it. If my players are a little gun-shy about offering up suggestions from their skill list (as they are), I as GM might prompt the thing about Weasel-wise–i.e., “Hey, why not use your Weasel-wise to make up something about the Weasels to make this easier”–but the principle is the same.

What would you do with a success on the Weasel-wise in this case? Make the Scout Ob easier? 'Cause that’s what I’d do. It becomes a Complex Obstacle where success on the first makes the second easier. Maybe failure on the wise allows the GM to create a fact that makes the Weasels more alert (“Weasels wake up at dusk and are the most alert at this time”) and so make the Scout Ob harder. Or is that consequence of failure Not Fun? Seems like a twist to me. Players get lots of power with Wises to do world-building that helps them mechanically, but it’s also at the risk of losing some of that power. It seems harder to put conditions on characters that fail wise tests, since wise tests are kind of a meta-game conceit, whereas none of the other tests are.

This is my humble opinion that carries no wait.

I don’t think wises should be questions. I think they should be statements.

Not: Are the weasels drunk?
but: I know weasels and I’m telling you they’re drunk. Let’s go.

Then the person rolls.
Pass: They practically waltz rite into the weasel camp.
Fail: The weasels aren’t drunk and catch them.

IMO wises should be something the character is sure he knows, if he rolls wrong, than he was wrong and faces the consequences.