Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[Rechan]

I like stunting. I've played several systems with stunt rules, some of which give you bonuses for doing something crazy or describing it well, etc.

So I definitely want to encourage stunting in my games. However, what I saw with my last group, has put some real doubt in me about them.

One player would constantly want to attack multiple people with "a big great swing of his axe". Another would just want to tackle people and knock them down. This was with 4e. The problem is that they wouldn't select those powers; they'd pick something else, and then just want to break the mold.

The problem was that they wanted to do something like this all the time. Which worried me. Why?

Before I began playing 4e, I saw another post on this topic, where an example was given why the person was against the terrain/stunting rules. It went like this:

"Let's say your PCs are in a kitchen when a fight breaks out. So, they're fighting, and someone gets the idea to pick up an open bag of flourr and sling it into someone's face. The GM, on the spot, rules that the target is blinded by the flower. Now, the PCs carry around pouches filled with flour where every they go, throwing it in the face of their target and blinding them. Because the GM made the ruling once, then for the sake of consistency, the rule should always be the same. Now the GM has handed the players a "Blind a guy" attack without having to spend points/a feat/a spell/whatever resource PCs use."

At the time I thought that was bunk. Because a GM wouldn't let the the players get away with that. But it's not just a GM issue; it's players getting into the habit of trying to get away with a technique that, if they want to do all the time, they should have to spend a resource to do (a feat, a power, whathaveyou). Stunts are meant to be "Sudden, clever ideas, sheer luck, and exploiting the surroundings".

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?

[samursus]

My first reaction to your posted query is: stunting works great as long as your group leans towards the N in GNS. If they lean towards the G or the S, you may have the problems you have mentioned, and as far as I am concerned, its back to using pg.42, STRICTLY by the book....diminishing returns and all.

Otherwise I would feel free to free-form stunts, perhaps in ways similar to how Rel and PirateCat have instituted them in their respective campaigns.

In the end, if they cannot use stunts in the spirit to which they were intended, I would just not allow them...or maybe spending encounter or dailys to use them, especially the repeatable/potent ideas.

Its all about what the group enjoys, although I would as a DM, definitely be bummed out if my players started using those tactics.

[Lord Pendragon]

Originally Posted by Rechan

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?

Page 42 of the DMG gives some fairly good guidelines for adjudicating stunts. The key is not to provide benefits for repeatable stunts that are out of line with at-will powers.

I certainly wouldn't allow a bag of flour to blind someone. It's far too powerful an effect. However, it may provide a -2 to hit rolls until the end of the attacker's next turn. This is in-line with certain at-will powers, lets the PC do it in combat, but does not make it so powerful that the players are encouraged to bring the flour out of the kitchen.

With non-repeatable stunts, you can be more generous with the effects, as you know they cannot be appropriated by the PCs as standard tactics.

[Huw]

Rule 0 and the DM screen are your friend:

Player: I throw flour in its face
DM (rolls dice behind screen, ignores result): It's blinded
Player: Cool! Lets grab the rest of the flour

...later...

Player: I throw flour in its face
DM, after rule-zeroing a 10% chance of success (rolls dice): It's got flour on its shoulder. It's still attacking you

Continue as necessary until the player does something original again. The trick is to make the improvised attacks less effective than anything the character is capable of doing according to their character sheet.

[LostSoul]

I guess you would tell them that your job as DM is to make sure that the game is entertaining. Part of that job means that you want to let players try anything they can think of, and if it makes sense, the DM will adjudicate it fairly.

However, if it gets to the point where you're exploiting something and that exploit makes the game less satisfying, it is the DM's job to reign that exploit in.

With the flour-in-the-eyes: The first time it might work. Once a player starts to exploit it, using flour as his main attack, the DM might rule like this:

-Against unsuspecting opponents, yeah, it'll work the first time.
-Against savvy opponents, or those who have seen it in action before, they'll probably be expecting it and close their eyes. The result is that, on a hit, instead of blinding the target suffers a -2 penalty to his next attack roll and grants combat advantage until the start of his next turn. (Or whatever.)

[Aran Thule]

My DM treats stunts as being about equal to what you could get from an at will power.
The first time they try something new then give them the advantage, if they abuse an idea then make modifications.
If what they try to do has more effect then an at will then they should get penalties as well.
So for your examples i might try:
big axe swing: roll to hit multiple targets but it just does [w] damage and for each attempt past the first you get a cumilative -2 penalty to hit (user could also be slowed/immobalied for one turn)
roleplay explanation: Your sweeping blow lacks force and accuracy and leaves you unbalanced.
Tackle: str vs ref but user is prone after use and has no weapons drawn, if attack hits then target is prone
Roleplay explanation: You sheath your weapons and leap at your targets legs trying to knock them down.
Bag of flour: dex vs ref, range 1, target can have Op Attack, if Op Attack hits target can choose to hit bag and flour will effect user. Effect: target bloind until uses minor action to remove flour.
Roleplay explanation: We throw the flour at your target while they try to deflect your improvised attack

[CharlesRyan]

In a game as resource-oriented as D&D, have you considered tying stunting to a resource? Perhaps a 1st-level encounter power available to all classes (or select classes if you prefer) that basically unlocks access to a stunting rule.

Thus, a player who doesn't select the power won't generally succeed at such things. ("I throw flour in his face!" "OK, his face is white, but you missed his eyes. He attacks!") Maybe you'll make an exception for taking advantage of the environment in especially clever or reasonable ways, but no more than you would in a non-stunty game.

A player who takes the power can use it like any other. The effects are less well defined than other powers, but that's where the beauty of a stunt lies: the more creative the player, the more benefit he'll get from the power.

Finally, if a player takes the power and then just carries around a bag of flour, well, it's a shame he couldn't be more creative, but at least there's a reasonable price, and a restriction on how often the stunt is used.

As for players who want to do things defined by existing powers, without taking the powers, there's a simple answer to that: If you want to do that, take the power!

[Protagonist]

Originally Posted by CharlesRyan

In a game as resource-oriented as D&D, have you considered tying stunting to a resource? Perhaps a 1st-level encounter power available to all classes (or select classes if you prefer) that basically unlocks access to a stunting rule.

Thus, a player who doesn't select the power won't generally succeed at such things. ("I throw flour in his face!" "OK, his face is white, but you missed his eyes. He attacks!") Maybe you'll make an exception for taking advantage of the environment in especially clever or reasonable ways, but no more than you would in a non-stunty game.

A player who takes the power can use it like any other. The effects are less well defined than other powers, but that's where the beauty of a stunt lies: the more creative the player, the more benefit he'll get from the power.

Finally, if a player takes the power and then just carries around a bag of flour, well, it's a shame he couldn't be more creative, but at least there's a reasonable price, and a restriction on how often the stunt is used.

As for players who want to do things defined by existing powers, without taking the powers, there's a simple answer to that: If you want to do that, take the power!

That's a good idea. I did (for my homebrew, since I'm currently not DMing 4E) something similiar by imposing a cumulative malus on stunts using the same skills.

Your first acrobatics-based stunt works fine. You can attempt another acrobatics-based stunt again, but you will have a -2 penalty on this check. A third time? Make that -4 etc. A player using 1 athletics-, 1 acrobatics- and 1 bluff-based stunt within the same battle would have better chances than someone using the same (kind of) trick three times in a row.

A minor rest could be used to reset this. Or a big rest if you really want to disencourage repeated stunts based on the same skill. If you want to be less strict you could say "same or very similiar stunt" instead of going by skill.

[vagabundo]

I think it does depend on the group. Some groups care about the game working and others just care about their character busting chops, even if it is game breaking.

If you group starts to abuse these kind of ruling, then it is time for some mechanical support. Create a few extra house rules around p42 - tons of inspiration from around here - and make sure it is balanced.

My hope it that the DMG II improves on the stunting rules to include conditions and more. I'd like some condition tracks and level appropriate advice for off-the-cuff powers.

I suppose it is good to say "Yes", but don't forget the "but"...

[SiderisAnon]

I have played Scion and Exalted, which have stunting built into the combat system. From those games, I would take the following guideline: A stunt is only a stunt the first time. If you can't come up with something new and different, you don't get the stunt bonus.

The first time you throw a bag of flower, it's a stunt and it's interesting. You start carrying around bags of flour and it's not a stunt, it's basically a signature move. (Though I would allow for the flour trick to work again many sessions later, especially if it's a situation where the flour would be appropriate, like a fight in a bakery.)

[Dausuul]

I've been thinking about this lately, and leaning toward an approach where you get X number of "stunt points" (or similar resource) per encounter, probably 1 or 2, maybe more with feats. These represent the character's ability to shape the battlefield; each fight, you have time to set up 1 or 2 stunts so they have a good chance of working. Beyond that, you're depending on desperate luck.

Then set up guidelines for the DM in deciding what a stunt can do. IMO, the idea that stunts should be on par with at-wills is silly. A stunt should work better than an at-will, or why are you bothering to attempt one at all?

BUT, if you don't spend a stunt point on it, you suffer a -5 penalty on the roll (or worse), which puts the stunt below at-wills in effectiveness. So you can carry around a bag of flour if you like, and use it every combat as your one stunt; in that case, you've basically chosen "flour in the face" as an encounter power. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with a PC having a signature trick. But you're probably better off with a more versatile selection of "stunt fodder."

If the stunt is using just stuff you've got with you, I think it should be roughly equivalent to an encounter power. If it uses non-portable and unusual elements of the terrain (e.g., smashing a cask of alchemist's fire and lighting it), or if it carries a substantial risk for the PC (again with guidelines on what happens when you fail), then it could be as good as a daily.

[ExploderWizard]

Any "stunt" that works reliably enough to be used on a regular basis becomes a standard combat tactic. Standard combat tactics exist because they work. If they didn't, then they wouldn't become so standard.

Once a given trick is commonplace it will be used by everyone, including the PC's enemies.

One aspect of the blindness bag of tricks that promps so many to use it over and over is the rules regarding the blinded condition. Rules that prohibit being able to attack unless condition X is met is kind of a severe consequence from a bit of dust in the face. I believe such rules to be a bit over-simulationist in an abstract system.

Lets say the blinded condition resulted in a temporary -4 to hit (old Basic D&D rule). Would players still be tripping over themselves lining up to impose this condition fight after fight? We used it from time to time but it didn't become a standard move. If the rules said that blinding someone resulted in pretty much taking someone out of the fight (for a time) then you bet it would be standard procedure.

[roguerouge]

Stunts: if you make me or the table laugh or say it's cool, then it's a stunt. If you make me say, "Are you sure you want to do that?" then it's not a stunt, and if you do it, it'll be a wasted action. If the table reacts like it's a normal thing, you make a basic attack and you've aided another.

If I DM'ed 4e, that's how I'd do it, at least.

[MadMaligor]

Another way to sidestep as a DM and avoid that kind of situation from becoming commonplace is to inject a bit of realism. Rule that the bag of flour is neccessary, a small handfull will not suffice. Dousing an opponent with a handy bag of flour is one thing. Tossing a small handfull with your sweaty palms from a pouch is another (if they need a demonstration, provide one, its a pretty fun sideshow and will get a few laughs while showing them just how silly it is).

If a PC is still stubborn enough to carry around a sack full of flour, remind him/her how difficult it will be to keep the bag from being punctured or ruptured during combat, heck even walking through a dense forest, or traversing the underdark would become a serious challenge.

*edit* ps...you also might rule that bags of flour carried by a PC can cause the PC problems. When an enemy crits, instead of the extra damage, rule that the weapon ruptured the bag and a swirling cloud of flour blinds the PC.

[Doug McCrae]

1e has the same problem with flaming oil.

These players just don't get it. As has been said, they are trying too hard to 'win'. These kind of stunts are supposed to make the game more interesting and more varied. They're supposed to be a reward for creativity. By trying them all the time the players are making them the exact opposite of that - very, very dull.

Consistency is over-rated. With these players I think you need to introduce a rule that stunts will only work once. Per campaign, not per fight.

[maddman75]

Stunts are inherently inconsistent. As the Exalted players noted, blinding an opponent with a bag of flour is a cool move done spontaneously. If they carry bags of flour around, it is lame and boring, and therefore doesn't work.

What stunt rules are about is style, and if they're doing this, they don't understand the stunt rules.

[Cadfan]

I flat out tell my players that they can't do the same stunt over and over again because that would be lame, but if they want to make something stunt-like into a power, we'll talk.

There's always the option of resolving these things in the metagame.

[tomBitonti]

That idea, of having a bag of flour blind an opponent, breaks the basic 4E game mechanics. Any [W] attack could concievably blind someone (by causing a forehead bleed), or could stun someone (by a head blow), and the combat mechanics do not include that level of detail. Having the bag of flour do an extra effect is not appropriate.

To fit within the game mechanics, a bag of flour is an improvised weapon, I would say Ranged, and should do some dice of damage. Or, the bag of flour could impose a one turn -2 penalty. The idea is to map the bag of flour attack to a basic game effect.

As an aside, I don't know about flour, but when I was young I had a handful of sand thrown in my face. I was ncapacitated for several minutes. The pain was increadible. I could still see a little, but not very well.

[maddman75]

Originally Posted by tomBitonti

That idea, of having a bag of flour blind an opponent, breaks the basic 4E game mechanics. Any [W] attack could concievably blind someone (by causing a forehead bleed), or could stun someone (by a head blow), and the combat mechanics do not include that level of detail. Having the bag of flour do an extra effect is not appropriate.

I would let players try to blind or stun their opponents by hitting them with weapons if they describe it in an interesting, fun way.

Style counts.

[tomBitonti]

Originally Posted by maddman75

I would let players try to blind or stun their opponents by hitting them with weapons if they describe it in an interesting, fun way.

Style counts.

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.