General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
If that works at your table. Lots of games would not allow that.
Let me ask ... if a player (who has a 6 square movement) asked to "stretch" there move by one extra square, in exchange for a -2 to attacks and defense, would you allow it?
Yes.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
How do you make it clear to players they can't just get away with carrying a bag of flour for free blindness attacks? And, we're not talking about just In-game responses - to me, that's passive aggressive (and leads to frustration on both sides of the screen). How do you communicate to the players, and make it clear, without squashing their ambition to use stunts in the first place?
You could try the truth.
"Hey, guys! You know, I like combat to be interesting. I like the characters to interact with their environment in new ways all the time, so here's something you should be aware of:
If you try to improvise something new and cool that is consistent with your environment, I am going to lean towards allowing it to work. However, if you use the same trick over and over, I am going to lean towards not allowing it to work.
So, you are likely to get better results with <i>new</i> moves, rather than old ones. Is everyone clear on that?"
You might also make stunting a resource - spend an action point, get a stunt this round! Or build out the trick in "Book of Iron Might" style, so that after their first try or two, if they really want the trick they can buy it.
That idea, of having a bag of flour blind an opponent, breaks the basic 4E game mechanics.
Environmental effects (which are closer to what stunting is about) are not limited to improvised weapon damage. Overuse does break the game, however.
I think the best answer to the problem is to add a generic Encounter Power Do Something Awesome, and possibly the generic Daily Power Do Something REALLY FRAKING SWEET!!!!!111!!!. The encounter power would mostly follow page 42. The daily would do even more (and possibly what I'd have blinding, slowing, dazing and other nasty status effects cover).
If these powers end up being too much, you might also follow the ring/milestone model in some way. ie if you haven't hit a milestone, you don't have either the daily or the encounter power, they pull from the lowest damage category, etc.
edit: and of course I'd add in the caveats that everyone else has said, new stuff is going to be more effective than old stuff, all this is at the DM's discretion, don't expect the same trick to work everywhere, etc. Basically, that this is an element for cinematic game play, not power gaming.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Last edited by malraux; 19th June 2009 at 04:42 PM..
That idea, of having a bag of flour blind an opponent, breaks the basic 4E game mechanics.
How? 4e attacks do damage and usually, impose a temporary condition (either 1 round or save ends). The bag of flour wouldn't do damage, so in that way it's different from a standard attack power, but other than that it's fine.
Bag of Flour Stunt: dex vs. Ref, target takes -2 to all attacks until the end of your next turn.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
First, the p42 guidelines are your friend in terms of damage. If they are talking about doing something that doesn't cause damage (like blinding with flour) then I'd be much more inclined to impose a -2 or -4 penalty to attacks than to allow them to actually be Blinded.
BUT I also have "Power Stunts", which is where they spend an Action Point + Healing Surge and get to do something extra cool. Since this is a limited resource then I don't mind it exceeding the normal limits of the p42 guidelines.
So far this has worked extremely well in my current campaign.
How? 4e attacks do damage and usually, impose a temporary condition (either 1 round or save ends). The bag of flour wouldn't do damage, so in that way it's different from a standard attack power, but other than that it's fine.
Bag of Flour Stunt: dex vs. Ref, target takes -2 to all attacks until the end of your next turn.
Very reasonable and cool repeatable stunt. Players intent on finding cheap ways of imposing the blinded condition won't bother with it, and its a cool move that might get used occasionally by others.
"Hey, guys! You know, I like combat to be interesting. I like the characters to interact with their environment in new ways all the time, so here's something you should be aware of:
If you try to improvise something new and cool that is consistent with your environment, I am going to lean towards allowing it to work. However, if you use the same trick over and over, I am going to lean towards not allowing it to work.
So, you are likely to get better results with <i>new</i> moves, rather than old ones. Is everyone clear on that?"
That's, in essence, what I wanted.
Having enemies use it or start giving penalties is passive-aggressive. If you do it without saying, "I'm doing this because you're using it too much."
Or, god forbid, only allow one or two stunts a whatever. The players I've ran into, they don't want to "stunt". They aren't saying "I want to stunt". They just say "Can't I just do x?"
I'm not playing with these guys now, but I'm trying to prep for my next group, because I want them to use stunts.
If that works at your table. Lots of games would not allow that.
Let me ask ... if a player (who has a 6 square movement) asked to "stretch" there move by one extra square, in exchange for a -2 to attacks and defense, would you allow it?
From a different point of view, I would think that pretty much all attacks might include debilitating effects: Stuns, blindness, jarred weapons, being forced off balance, being forced to stumble or fall, knocked out of breath, being kneed in a sensitive spot.
There are all sorts of detailed effects which would normally be possible, and which which normally be what an attack would try to achieve. But, the game rules simply do not include them in the combat model.
I'm not really into simulation, I'm into creating fun stories with characters who do awesome things. I'm all about bending or breaking the rules so you can do something awesome. I'm very much a yes, but kind of GM.
As for squeezing one extra point of movement out of a stunt, it is going to depend on what exactly they are doing. If they are trying to dash more quickly than normal to get to a McGuffin, maybe I'll make them Fatigued afterward or dock them a healing surge. If they want to strike an opponent just out of reach by running and lunging at them, maybe I'll let them do so but they are literally diving across the room and will be prone after the attack.
If they put it just like that, "can I get an extra point of movement if I took a penalty", then no, probably not. I'd suggest they turn it into a stunt. Style counts.
And again, none of these would become standard moves. If you want it as a standard move, we'll work it up as a power and you can take it next level. These are mostly one time only things.
I don't strictly adhere to the rules. I don't have a book of rules, I have a book of suggestions. I'm more than willing to throw them out if it makes for something cool happening.
Again, style counts.
__________________ Looking for gaming in Springfield, IL? Check out my Meetup Group.
How do you make it clear to players they can't just get away with carrying a bag of flour for free blindness attacks? And, we're not talking about just In-game responses - to me, that's passive aggressive (and leads to frustration on both sides of the screen). How do you communicate to the players, and make it clear, without squashing their ambition to use stunts in the first place?
"Never forget... If you can do it, so can the monsters. Don't overdo it."
Let some of the monsters pull the same style of tricks, if the players take it too far.
__________________ The Pbartender
"I don't believe it. There she goes again! She's tidied up, and I can't find anything! All my tubes and wires and careful notes and antiquated notions..." - Thomas Dolby
If that works at your table. Lots of games would not allow that.
Let me ask ... if a player (who has a 6 square movement) asked to "stretch" there move by one extra square, in exchange for a -2 to attacks and defense, would you allow it?
Probably. Why not? You can stretch your movement two squares for a -5 to attacks and granting combat advantage. -2 and CA in exchange for 1 square seems not unreasonable.
As far as the bags of flour go, I'm very uncomfortable with using "You can't do this any more because it isn't cool and exciting" as a justification. In the absence of a suitable stunt system to handle these things, I'd be more likely to go with:
"Okay, guys, the thing where you blinded the guy with the flour was a quick and dirty solution to a one-off stunt. If you want to keep throwing bags of flour, I'm going to have to sit down and work out a set of well-considered rules for it. I'll warn you now that flour-throwing under such rules won't work nearly as well. Given that, are you sufficiently wed to your Flinging Baker Kung Fu that I should take the time to hash out those rules? Or shall we just drop the flour business and move on?"
In other words, stunt mechanics should by default be considered non-binding and non-precedent-setting.
Last edited by Dausuul; 19th June 2009 at 08:41 PM..
Lets say the blinded condition resulted in a temporary -4 to hit (old Basic D&D rule).
Blinded creatures grant CA, have a -5 penalty to attack rolls, can't flank enemies, and have a -10 penalty to perception rolls.
I would have no problem with someone trading a standard action to do no damage and blind on a hit. Big deal. If it's against an elite or solo creature that changes things, but that's not a problem with stunts - it's a problem with "stunlocking" or whatever the kids call it.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
How? 4e attacks do damage and usually, impose a temporary condition (either 1 round or save ends). The bag of flour wouldn't do damage, so in that way it's different from a standard attack power, but other than that it's fine.
Bag of Flour Stunt: dex vs. Ref, target takes -2 to all attacks until the end of your next turn.
Only, that's not nearly "blind", which is a defined condition with a strong effect.
Nearly all the examples that I am seeing are doing pretty much what I suggested earlier: Translating the effect into a game effect proportional to the resource cost of the effect. In 3E parlance, that is about the same as a +/-2 situational modifier for special conditions.
The resulting effect much more along the lines of getting a little dust in the face, rather than a true temporary blindness.
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.
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.
What would work, though, on a more positive note, would be a set of guidelines, along with lots of examples, and a clear looseness in the play environment that encouraged thinking outside of the strict rules. I get back to my "running 7 squares with a 6 square movement" example. I don't think the rules set encourages players to try to push results like this. Going back to the 3E example, by definition, you cannot use power attack unless you have the feat. But it seems that you should be able to try, and receive a similar if lesser effect than if you had the feat.
You would have to make a deep pass across all sorts of rules to get that to work, which would be cool, but I don't think 3E or 4E really supports the idea. I think you would need to see, in bold somewhere, a statement, that "Everyone can try everything. Really, we mean it. Everything. Unhuh. Give it a shot."
(Would you allow a player to make an attack vs Will to cause a "Come and Get it" type effect on a single opponent? Maybe they would require a few tries before the opponent responded, and maybe there could be a backlash where the other opponents thought you were a shrill pansy, but maybe you would get under the skin on that one opponent with an accidental barb and get them to attack you. Spoiler: I'm thinking something like Spocks vulnerability to comments about his mother.)
Going that route, the daily/encounter/at will power structure has an interesting interpretation: The frequence limitations are then a limit on the amount of narrative spotlight that each player gets. It does paint as newbs players that rely on the literal power text, and who rely on the imposed "you can do something cool once per day" in opposition to the players "with style" who invent clever powers on the fly, and who have to think up opportunities to use a daily type power.
Last edited by tomBitonti; 19th June 2009 at 09:25 PM..
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.
This is a good reason to be up front w/the player before they attempt the stunt. "If you succeed with X, Y will occur".
Quote:
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.
This is a good argument for being accommodating to new players, helping them get up to speed, and generally not playing in an adversarial manner (at least with new folk at the table). It has nothing to do with stunt rules.
Quote:
What would work, though, on a more positive note, would be a set of guidelines, along with lots of examples, and a clear looseness in the play environment that encouraged thinking outside of the strict rules.
I'd pay for a book like this.
Quote:
(Would you allow a player to make an attack vs Will to cause a "Come and Get it" type effect on a single opponent?
Interesting... yes. On multiple opponents, even, depending on the situation.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
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!
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Here's what I'd tell the players if I were running a game.
Doing improvised maneuvers is cool, it works because it's cool. When you start doing it all the time it ceases to be cool. When it's not cool, it doesn't work.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
What would work, though, on a more positive note, would be a set of guidelines, along with lots of examples, and a clear looseness in the play environment that encouraged thinking outside of the strict rules.
As I said earlier: For 3.x, there's Book of Iron Might.
Maybe not as many examples as you'd like - but honestly, examples would serve only to encourage GMs to look things up. I'm expecting a guideline to how to do it on the fly with some consistency is more useful than a major list of examples.
One way I've seen it handled in PBP games I've read is to use an appropriate daily/encounter power with the appropriate effect, and have the special effects be the stunt itself.
This works particularly well for martial maneuvers (there's, like, a million ways you can describe some 'dirty fighting' tricks that'd leave someone prone/dazed/whatever), but using magic to affect the environment to stunt would go about the same way.
Props to the OP to going with the classic 'bag of flour' effect, it's old-school and does a good job of pointing out the downside to 'stunts' that are just the same thing over and over again.
IMC, stunts aren't repeatable at-will for a reason similar to why martial encounter powers aren't repeatable at-will. If you're in a kitchen and suddenly sling an open bag of flour into an opponent's eyes, he's caught off guard and possibly blinded for a round. Everyone else in the combat is now aware of this trick and won't fall for it as hard. At worst, they'll get a -2 to attack rolls for a round. Similarly, if you carry a big bag of flour into a dungeon, your opponents will be suspicious and on guard against your flour-in-the-eyes trick.
In short, a stunt is a stunt because it's unexpected, usually because you use some feature of the terrain in an unintended way. Once you perform the stunt once, it's no longer unexpected in that encounter. Once you leave the terrain of that encounter behind, attempts to bring along the ingredients of the stunt will be obvious to your foes. I know this line of reasoning isn't ironclad, but it's the thought process through which I would go.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
