Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[Mallus]

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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

 

[malraux]

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.

 

[Mallus]

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.

 

[Rel]

So I handle this in two ways:

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

 

[Rechan]

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?"

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.

 

[maddman75]

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.

 

[Rechan]

For the record, the Bag of Flour example came from a GURPS player.

 

[Pbartender]

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.