“Along with the fictional considerations of what threat is the most apparent when choosing the source of damage, you also want to keep in mind what kind of damage you’re dealing. This might also seem obvious in the fiction as well, but dealing damage does not always have to mean Imposing a Condition. If there’s a lone civilian in the face of one of the heroes, threatening them, they may seem like an obvious source of danger (and danger can be occasionally mixed up and come from mundane sources every now and then, if that’s the game you want to play), but it doesn’t mean that the civilian has to deal a Condition to be threatening or dangerous. How you express danger and how the heroes need to react to an opponent is left in your able hands.” (p.148, “Inflicit an appropriate condition)
Could anyone explain this a little bit? I can’t imagine how “a lone civilian who can’t deal a Condition to the heroes” can be a threat to heroes.
Yes. I know a lone civilian can attack hero’s reputation, or can put someone who is important to heroes into danger. But I think that is “Threaten a Bond” move, not “Inflict an appropriate condition” move. Or is it the one of “damage, but not a Condition?”
📌
I think the point meant in the book is exactly what you say: A civilian could ‘harm’ the heroes by Threatening a bond, turning the public opinion against them or telling their secrets to the evil mastermind, even though they are probably not able to impose a condition by themselves.
Yeah, keep in mind Conditions can be anything that makes sense in the fiction; If a civilian presses the right buttons they could still inflict a Condition like “Hot-Headed” on a character by making them angry, or make them “Dumb Struck” or “Shaken to the Core” by revealing some information, etc. Danger doesn’t have to mean physical harm was the point – some characters, like civilians, might not be able to inflict physical or lasting harm, but could still be threatening and impose Conditions in different ways.