Quote:
Originally Posted by tomBitonti  I suspect that players will be disappointed with the results if the result is this small. After all, they want to blind the opponent, not simply cause them to squint. |
Clearly stating intent before you attempt an action is an important part of the process, I think. You might not always get the correct information:
Player: I want to burn him with acid! I dump the vat of acid on him!
DM: Make an attack, close burst 3, Str +2 v Ref, 3d6+4 Acid damage, miss half.
Player: Awesome, 22 and 14 damage.
DM: He laughs as the acid washes over him like water. That's right, acid resistance! Ha ha ha!
...but otherwise you should be clear about the process. If the best you can do is make him squint, the DM should be clear about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomBitonti A second problem is that this style of result tends to be very specific to player-GM combinations. A new player who doesn't know the local rules, or doesn't have the same understanding of the GM, or who is simply cautious about looking for extra benefits, will be put off when the next player throws out a couple of situational benefits. |
That is one of the strengths of the RPG format - no two groups are going to play the same way. It allows for individual creativity.
Yeah, there will be an adjustment period as you get used to a new group's way of dealing with things, and you might not like how they play at all. The only other option is to make everyone play the same way, and I don't think it's worth it; what you gain in conformity you lose in creativity.
Stunts require judgements from the players in a moment-to-moment time frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomBitonti (Would you allow a player to make an attack vs Will to cause a "Come and Get it" type effect on a single opponent? |
Yep, if it made sense. The PC might even be able to do it as a free action if he says the right thing!
And yet another word from our sponsors
