Stunting and the Bag of Flour Connundrum

[LostSoul]

Just for the heck of it, I will observe that the problem does not appear if one grants common sense a role.

I am upset that I can't spread XP around for this, because to me this is the big issue; it's about whether or not common sense plays a role in the game.

The DM is the gatekeeper of "common sense". He's not a lonely god sitting on high, though, he's down in the dirt with the people playing the game. It is his responsibility to make sure that common sense rules the day, for whatever the group determines "common sense" is.

I think that is one of the great strengths of RPGs - that each group can come up with a system that suits them well.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

1) Don't give an automatic blindness attack. Require some sort of roll for it.

2) Give a hefty 'originality bonus' to the roll, which makes it likely to succeed the first time, but unlikely thereafter.

You justify this by laying it out to your players: stunt rules are about entertaining game-play, not realistic simulation. Therefore, you get the bonus for doing things that are entertaining.

I really like the idea of the "originality bonus". That's a neat way of explaining why it won't work again.

 

[Pbartender]

That's not the point. The point is toe A) discourage the silly exploit by enforcing common sense rules...

Just for the heck of it, I will observe that the problem does not appear if one grants common sense a role.

Echo!



Needless to say, I agree with Ariosto... A lot of game rule problems (not jsut this one, and not just in this edition) dissappear with a small dose of common sense.

Hmm, but there is tear gas, and flash bombs.

...and 2) reinforce it by presenting an alternative that works similarly, but is more in line with the rules and balance of the game...

...Blinding Bombs from Adventurer's Vault, for example...

Whaddya know... you're right. Tear gas (Blinding Bombs) and flash bombs (Jolt Flasks) both make appearances in Adventurer's Vault. Similar items were not uncommon in earlier editions.

Anyway...

As already suggested, I think part of the issue here isn't so much that the PCs want to do something cool with what they find, but that original adjudicated effect was too powerful for what it is.

It's not an easy thing to manage on the fly in the middle of a game, but some consideration has to be taken when ruling on the effect of little environmental tricks like this. The trick either needs to be locational (triggering a rockslide in a cave already weakened by an earthquake), situational (shoving an enemy in front of the 6:21 Cross-Town Express just as it passes by), or not much more useful than an At-Will (tossing sand in someone's eyes to inflict a -2 penalty on attack rolls until the end of your next turn).

There are a lot of other ways to make the very minor tricks useful, without making them better than character powers. For example, the type of action the character gets to use is a big one.

If, for example, you rule that flour in the face doesn't deal any damage but inflicts a small penalty to attacks for a round by using a move action, then it will get used occassionally but not constantly. The move action encourages players who don't need to move much to use it when they can. At the same time, it prevents them from using it constantly, because sometimes they will need to move around and any standard At-Will power will be more powerful than what they get out of the flour.

On top of that... It's okay to admit that you got it wrong and tell the players, "Look, I know you want to carry flour packets around to blind people with, but honestly... I made a mistake, and that effect is really too powerful. If you want to use cheap dust packets, that's fine, but I need to change their effect. Otherwise, here's a list of more expensive alchemical items that can blind enemies."

 

[Ariosto]

I mostly DM the original D&D set and play characters in AD&D, both of which leave much more up to ad hoc rulings. The approach to which I am accustomed is one in which difficult questions tend to get resolved by consensus.

Sure, as a role-player I appreciate the DM's job of keeping hidden factors that should be hidden so that I can enjoy the challenge of discovering them. However, it is often the case that there's no real need to leave the burden of adjudication purely to the DM even on that basis.

D&D is a social activity, and I find that being "on the same page" together is key to smooth going.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

1) Don't give an automatic blindness attack. Require some sort of roll for it.

2) Give a hefty 'originality bonus' to the roll, which makes it likely to succeed the first time, but unlikely thereafter.

You justify this by laying it out to your players: stunt rules are about entertaining game-play, not realistic simulation. Therefore, you get the bonus for doing things that are entertaining.

I love the stunt rules and wish my players would use them ,,, er more. Or at all for that matter. I need to set up the encounters better to have stuntable things around..

But, back on topic, I agree with Delericho. I would rule the throwing flour and or sand thusly:

Standard attack, requires flour/sand in hand
Int vs Ref ranged attack against 1 target
-2 to hit for each interventing square {you have to be close}
Hit: -2 to attacks and defences until the end of the targets turn
Crit: Target is blinded, until the end of the targets turn

This allows the original rulling of blinding the targets to remain valid while giving a valid option for future attempts.

Ninja, of course, use the higher cosing Blinding Bombs because they are better.

IIRC, there was a '101 stunts' thread floating around here somewhere...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just a quick question...

Did you apply the "Improvised Weapon" modifiers? Or are they proficient in "throwing powders?"

Improvised Weapons

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

The original ruling of letting it work without penalty the first time could be justified (retconned) as getting a surprise bonus...one that would be absent subsequently.

 

[tomBitonti]

As already suggested, I think part of the issue here isn't so much that the PCs want to do something cool with what they find, but that original adjudicated effect was too powerful for what it is.

It's not an easy thing to manage on the fly in the middle of a game, but some consideration has to be taken when ruling on the effect of little environmental tricks like this. The trick either needs to be locational (triggering a rockslide in a cave already weakened by an earthquake), situational (shoving an enemy in front of the 6:21 Cross-Town Express just as it passes by), or not much more useful than an At-Will (tossing sand in someone's eyes to inflict a -2 penalty on attack rolls until the end of your next turn).

I'm wholly in agreement with this.

Thx!

 

[Rechan]

To respond to a lot of the posts...

The flour circumstance did not happen in my game and it is merely an example.

As I said in the OP, it was an anecdote I picked up here on ENWorld, from a GURPS GM.

The constant replies are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not the blindness ruling. The issue is a PC using a spur-of-the-moment stunt and turning it into a constant battle tactic which they are not spending resources to use.

 

[Stormtalon]

2) Another way is to give them foes that aren't affected by the non-stunt stunts. Most constructs wouldn't be affected by a faceful of flour or pepper, or what have you. (Aerosolized flour that is exposed to an open flame is another mater entirely...BOOM!)

This -- if they start to abuse it, have them encounter a group of Azers and hope they take the bait....

*edit*

The general idea is that just about every cheesy abusive tactic of this sort normally has some circumstance under which it not only doesn't work but actually makes it backfire. Once is fun, twice is good as they're getting some mileage outta their trick but after the 3rd in a row you find the weakness and show them that it's NOT a one-size-fits-all tactic and they'd better think about mixing things up.

 

[LostSoul]

The issue is a PC using a spur-of-the-moment stunt and turning it into a constant battle tactic which they are not spending resources to use.

My personal view is: does it make sense in the game world?

If it does, it should work.