Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[ExploderWizard]

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

I have played a lot of GURPS.



So what are you saying.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

 

[Mallus]

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".

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.

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.

(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.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

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.

(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!

 

[Oni]

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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Malhavoc Press: The 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.

 

[ST]

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.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

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.