Stunting

[Talakeal]

Some games, for example Exalted, provide bonuses for PCs doing "stunts". Wild and cinematic moves that would look great in a Kung-Fu or Swashbucking movie, even if they aren't terribly realistic like swinging on chandeliers, rolling under the enemy's legs, sliding down bannisters, or jumping from the backs of one enemy to another.

Sometimes, they are, underwhelming, for example I often heard about 4E D&D and how it is almost never better to take an improvised action than use one of your at-will powers.

I tried to implement this in my Heart of Darkness system fairly simply; you narrate the stunt, you make an agility test, and if you pass, you get +2 on your attack, if you fail you get -2.

However, one of my players, Bob the munchkin, soon realized that if he was playing a character with a high agility, it was mathematically optimal to do this every turn. However, being the min-maxxer he is, he refused to actually narrate the stunts, and just said he was doing a stunt and that it was unfair to ask anything else.

Now, a new player has joined the group and is learning to play a rogue. Bob is teaching him, and telling him to stunt every round. When I told the new player it was necessary to narrate your stunts, he now simply says "I flip off the wall" before every attack.

When I told him the idea wasn't just to spam the same stunt over and over again, he stopped doing it at all. At that point, Bob jumped in and said that if I ever actually publish the game, nobody will actually narrate their stunts, they will just take the bonus and ignore the fiction, and that the only groups that actually enjoy narrative stunt rules are those who are less playing an RPG than they are... well I don't think I will repeat what he said.


So is this true? Does anyone have experienced with published games with good stunting rules? Do people generally ignore them, or just take the bonus as an entitlement with no narrative component?

[NichG]

Some games, for example Exalted, provide bonuses for PCs doing "stunts". Wild and cinematic moves that would look great in a Kung-Fu or Swashbucking movie, even if they aren't terribly realistic like swinging on chandeliers, rolling under the enemy's legs, sliding down bannisters, or jumping from the backs of one enemy to another.

Sometimes, they are, underwhelming, for example I often heard about 4E D&D and how it is almost never better to take an improvised action than use one of your at-will powers.

I tried to implement this in my Heart of Darkness system fairly simply; you narrate the stunt, you make an agility test, and if you pass, you get +2 on your attack, if you fail you get -2.

However, one of my players, Bob the munchkin, soon realized that if he was playing a character with a high agility, it was mathematically optimal to do this every turn. However, being the min-maxxer he is, he refused to actually narrate the stunts, and just said he was doing a stunt and that it was unfair to ask anything else.

Now, a new player has joined the group and is learning to play a rogue. Bob is teaching him, and telling him to stunt every round. When I told the new player it was necessary to narrate your stunts, he now simply says "I flip off the wall" before every attack.

When I told him the idea wasn't just to spam the same stunt over and over again, he stopped doing it at all. At that point, Bob jumped in and said that if I ever actually publish the game, nobody will actually narrate their stunts, they will just take the bonus and ignore the fiction, and that the only groups that actually enjoy narrative stunt rules are those who are less playing an RPG than they are... well I don't think I will repeat what he said.


So is this true? Does anyone have experienced with published games with good stunting rules? Do people generally ignore them, or just take the bonus as an entitlement with no narrative component?

I don't think I've even seen a group using a system that gives bonuses for RP (including stunting) just say 'sure, you can get the bonuses without the RP'. The closest to that I've seen is with a system in which you could get a bonus to casting a spell by having your character say the incantation (which made it take longer to cast), where at the table people eventually just said 'I name and incant' after awhile. But since that also has a specific in-character consequence (that the spell now takes a full round action to cast rather than a standard action), it doesn't quite feel the same.

I think stunting systems can serve two different purposes and it helps to be clear if you're aiming for one, the other, or both.

- One purpose is to encourage people to be more descriptive with their actions - in that sense basically the system exists to bribe a player to do a certain thing. If the player doesn't do the thing, or does it poorly, they should not receive the bribe. If the idea of bribing players to RP better doesn't sit well for you or your group, you shouldn't use this kind of stunting system in the first place.

- The other purpose is to explicitly permit players to do things outside of the specific codified set of actions in the rules, and to assure them that doing so won't just be a wasted or sub-optimal action. Here the mindset is that the specific thing the player wants to do should matter somehow, and generally in a generous fashion to offset the uncertainty of the player not knowing how it will be resolved exactly and trusting in the GM (and the stunting system) to mediate that process. For instance, a character high up on a balcony who wants to attack someone below them might want to swing down on a curtain rope and attack in one motion in a system where 'jumping down' consumes the same type of action as an attack would require. Rather than the benefit of this being a +2 to hit, the benefit would be that e.g. in this circumstance they can both jump down and attack in the same round, which wouldn't be possible if they split the movement and attack down in terms of normal actions. And because it goes beyond, it should be conditional on the specific context (there's something to swing down on, the character can use their weapon one-handed, etc). For a system like this, you don't want to perfectly standardize the consequence of a stunt, but you do want to standardize the negotiation process between the player and GM to determine how a given stunt will be resolved - perhaps giving a set of factors for the GM to consider in order to determine if the stunt just goes as declared, if it requires a gatekeeping roll, if it is just not allowed; and when can it be repeated?

[Tanarii]

Yes. Players either abusing stunting by declaring whatever minimal in-fiction activity they think they can get away with, or tables ignoring/house-ruling it out, is a known problem with the concept.

Of course, it's not abuse if the game system assumes it will be used almost all the time. Then it's instead a requirement to describe your action to the satisfaction of the GM. Which some players will and do object to.

Edit:
It's also a common problem for games that have a system that allow use of any skill/ability score (or whatever it's called in the game) as long as you can justify it descriptively. AW and BitD for example. It's very common for new GMs to complain online about players abusing this, and the typical responses to those GMs is to remember the rules of the game are (paraphrasing) 'fiction first' and 'don't be a weasel'.

All of which is to say that the concepts (both before and after the edit) are fine and dandy for the right kind of player. But they only work if the player buys in. Some won't.

[Phhase]

Sounds like your players are joyless and uncreative card-counters. A bit hyperbolic, but they really don't seem to be putting in the effort. I myself have some powergaming tendencies, but I always try to make it stylish, because what's the point of swinging your sword just a little better? I want to do cool things like shoot down hanging chandeliers and cause dust explosions. Not play the game like a Whack-a-Mole machine.

Albeit, it seems to me that the system does rely mostly on the players to supply the cool factor and the satisfaction to it. "I swing from a chandelier to cross the crowd and slam into him feet-first! What do I get for that?" You get +2. "I deliberately ricochet my shot off of his sword so it bounces to strike from an unexpected angle! What do I get?" You get +2. "I clash my weapons to create sparks that blind my foe before going in for a swing! What do I get?" You get +2. See what I mean? When the payoff is bland and the same every time, the thrill of creativity diminishes somewhat, as the mechanics don't really do much to reinforce the fantasy. Thus, the urge to improvise and stunt is somewhat discouraged. Narrative is all well and good, but some people find it hard to ignore the fact that narrative can be anything you want it to be, and thus can sometimes have a hollow feeling if the payoff doesn't have some hard, mechanically measurable backing. Having the mechanics uniquely reward you for being creative, for some people can lend a more tangible weight to the reward of creativity.

It's a complex issue naturally, and one that depends on player types. It seems your player might prefer a different system, that rewards card-counting more.

[Telok]

Works fine without players being jackasses about it. Ref: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?658643-Return-to-Dungeons-the-Dragoning-40k-7e

Had several people do some quite good ones last campaign too. Will see if I can dig up the old post.

Edit: appatently the best bit didn't get into a post, so spoiler. This is from the condensed post-game GM notes log file.
Guys were laying fiber optic and mirrors down a corridor in the front of the ship to try to burn shadows in the power core. The power core is empty but they don't know that.

Hamanu gets about 4 giant zombie bug-busses through (statted as 'living' vehicle, alternate controls - necromancy magic rolls, berserker circuit, mild armor, two ballista & lots of passenger room) and a squad of templars. Start disembarking. PCs come around & fighting starts. Lobos in assault shuttle flies low & strafes with suppressing fire, panicking many troops. Smythe in EIN hover tank blows away a ballista a round with called shots (I had to guesstimate damage & crew for verisimilitude, then consistent high damage rolls made it pretty moot). Velon zooms around on syrne hoverbike lobbing occasional fireballs and weaponizing defiling.

Bug-busses charge the hovertank & a couple ballista shots do a little damage, tank is actually kinda fragile (hover/vtol version of Battletech light Scorpion tank https://www.mechground.com/index.php?title=Scorpion_Light_Tank_(3026)) and Smythe orders the driver to go higher when a de-peopled bug-bus on auto-berserk rams and damages the tank. Hamanu throws a combo spell & then goes invisible: gate+summon servitor 4 to put an 'ectoplasmic war monster' on the wing of the assault shuttle, it does a wound to the shuttle with it's claws. A final few shadows emerge and start eating troops.

Hamanu meteor storms the shadows & the hovertank, which is smoking badly now. The last bug-bus is de-peopled and they start attacking each other. With all troops panicked or dead Hamanu teleports up to the tank to melee Smythe (he got out to get a better downward angle with a rocket launcher). Lobos blasts them all with a storm bolter full-auto. Hamanu blinks out of the burst, Smythe dodges it, the tank hits 0 HP & starts its crash & burn.

Hamanu telports into the shuttle cockpit (it was below the tank and the windows aren't tinted) where he and Lobos start duking out with the NPC pilot being very very worried & keeps flying. Smythe stunts to rip off an access panel of the tank and shoot the anti-grav capacitor just right (with a plasma pistol) to boost his jump up as the shuttle passes 30+ meters overhead. He succeeds (tech roll for TN 25, shoot roll of TN 30, jump of TN of 80ish), yay for stunting rules combo with jumping rules - PCs get to be awesome.

Hamanu Defenstrates (spell) Lobos out the front windshield of the shuttle, he stunt lands on his feet, quickdraws a melta-gun & starts shooting into the shuttle. Hamanu, Lobos & Smythe start a brawl on the nose of the assault shuttle as it heads upward towards past 1500m altitude & kicks in the scram-jets. Hamanu teleports home where he smashes a wall and uses up his Death Ward spell. Lobos rolls into the cockpit & starts scrambling for a void suit. Smythe (he's wearing power armor) gets stuck in the window and slows air loss enough for Lobos to suit up.

[False God]

My experience comes from two angles:
At one time, I gave RP bonuses, the usual "narrate your action, get a +2 bonus". And initially the result was good, people narrated their actions, and got bonuses, RP improved. However, it really started to wear on the people who didn't have "cool stuff" to do every turn. Sure, they could say they were leaping off a wall to make an attack, but it came down to "I swing my sword a new way this time." and with 3X's iterative attacks, they struggling to find creative ways to narrate all of them. Characters with a wider selection of "cool stuff" and fewer attacks per turn had less of an issue, particularly since many of the spells in the cool stuff toolkit had built-in flavor that made for an easy jumping off point to RP.

Eventually it became reductive in order to balance turn speed and creativity, not unlike what your Bob is doing.

In FFG Star Wars, you get "advantages" which you can spend to mechanically do cool things. It was cool, at first, but over time people fell into mechanically optimal choices. Sure, it was helpful that everyone was giving the next guy a bonus die to attack, but it was dull. The game promoted the idea that these, along with their inverse, Threat, would be used to add cool narrative elements that also granted mechanical benefits and penalties. Unfortunately, on both ends it often fell into the same groove of optimal choices.

So, like before, it became reductive in order to balance turn speed and creatvitiy.

----
In 4E, yes, you could do "stunts", but powers were always better, they were more powerful, more evocative, and more useful. IMO, this is still a better way to implement "stunts". A limited selection of balanced, codified abilities that are available on the basis of class/race/etc... that a player can choose from to encourage roleplay and creativity by helping them evoke the action of their character; rather than asking them to create it from whole cloth (which frankly, some people just aren't good at).

So IME, I've never seen a good "stunts" system that doesn't couple mechanics and roleplay into a codified ability.

[NichG]

So IME, I've never seen a good "stunts" system that doesn't couple mechanics and roleplay into a codified ability.

I'm running a superhero/supervillain campaign and system in which basically everything is a stunt in the sense that players can make up (in advance or on the fly) what their powers are and how they work, within a loose theme and modality of operation. It helps that the questions the system asks are less 'can a given character do a given thing?' and more 'what should the world be like, how should the world work, who disagrees with you, and how much are they willing to risk in order to disagree?'.

I tend to agree that mixed systems don't really work though.

[Zanos]

I think your player did usefully point out an issue with your stunting system that you ignored; it's mechanically optimal for characters to built around a specific stat to stunt, and probably not very good for characters who aren't built around that stat to even attempt it. Most stunt systems are just RP stuff well = minor bonus, not making a roll to see if you can get a +2 and getting a -2 if you fail. I usually drop it in combat heavy systems because there's only so many ways to describe swinging a sword that are interesting. Players who want to narrate their actions in detail will do so with or without the presence of a stunt system, so I usually only bother with something like it around newer players who don't realize that's even an option, and I've nearly always wound up dropping it.

[stoutstien]

Some games, for example Exalted, provide bonuses for PCs doing "stunts". Wild and cinematic moves that would look great in a Kung-Fu or Swashbucking movie, even if they aren't terribly realistic like swinging on chandeliers, rolling under the enemy's legs, sliding down bannisters, or jumping from the backs of one enemy to another.

Sometimes, they are, underwhelming, for example I often heard about 4E D&D and how it is almost never better to take an improvised action than use one of your at-will powers.

I tried to implement this in my Heart of Darkness system fairly simply; you narrate the stunt, you make an agility test, and if you pass, you get +2 on your attack, if you fail you get -2.

However, one of my players, Bob the munchkin, soon realized that if he was playing a character with a high agility, it was mathematically optimal to do this every turn. However, being the min-maxxer he is, he refused to actually narrate the stunts, and just said he was doing a stunt and that it was unfair to ask anything else.

Now, a new player has joined the group and is learning to play a rogue. Bob is teaching him, and telling him to stunt every round. When I told the new player it was necessary to narrate your stunts, he now simply says "I flip off the wall" before every attack.

When I told him the idea wasn't just to spam the same stunt over and over again, he stopped doing it at all. At that point, Bob jumped in and said that if I ever actually publish the game, nobody will actually narrate their stunts, they will just take the bonus and ignore the fiction, and that the only groups that actually enjoy narrative stunt rules are those who are less playing an RPG than they are... well I don't think I will repeat what he said.


So is this true? Does anyone have experienced with published games with good stunting rules? Do people generally ignore them, or just take the bonus as an entitlement with no narrative component?

You're ran into most of the known flaws for this type of mechanic.

1) if the bonus is sizable enough to be impactful then anyone who is aware of the math will try to achieve it as much as possible. So might put in the effort to Google: 99 fight scene cinematic moves but if they don't you can't really say no because...

2) some people don't want to describe their actions on this level of detail so it create a bonus based on the player's ability rather than the character's. It's akin to giving a special bonus if somebody declares their action in the form of slam poetry or only if they can walk on their hands.


Even for heavily narrative focused games mechanics like this are hard to implement without buy-in and even then it results in the very thing that it is trying to prevent. It shifts focus away from the narrative back to the resolution mechanics.

[Anymage]

Mechanical issues aside, is HoD really a system where you want stunts? When I think of flashy action sequences I don't often think of crunchy gothic systems. And there are people with a more simulationist bent, who argue that if you do something foolishly risky you should have to deal with the consequences. (There are likely parallels to the combat as sport/combat as war idea here.)

Making stunts a risk goes against the idea in the first place. As does making it so that only one type of character can expect that risk to go in their favor. The backbone of a good stunting system should be that it's never less effective than taking the more prosaic action, you're shielded from the worst of the risks of attempting a stunt over a more prosaic action, and the player's ability to add unstated but plausible elements to the scene to enable a stunt. The dice bonus and how to make it engage well with the system are secondary.

[Telok]

In 4E, yes, you could do "stunts", but powers were always better, they were more powerful, more evocative, and more useful. ....
....So IME, I've never seen a good "stunts" system that doesn't couple mechanics and roleplay into a codified ability.

Oh, yeah. The 4e bit was pretty bad with anything stunt-like being default to str/dex based. Totally useless for a non str/dex primary stat character. "lessee +5 to hit and 2d6+1 damage or +8 to hit and 1d8+4+rider effect... yeah i'll just at will again".

Come to think that might be the issue with the op's method. Its a static combat buff linked to a specific stat. In games like Exalted, assorted supers, and DtD40k7e, the stunts are generic riders unattached to combat or stats. If you can think of a way to stunt unjam a gun or social-fu someone then you get the bonus.

And something I've learned is to either not require additional rolls or make them relatively easy. My spoikered example is actually in violation of this and that was a mistake, the PC needing a dc 60+ jump check was rough enough already. The extra fail chance just adds to the disincentive for casual players to use them and is irrelevant to the hardcore min/max players. In DtD40k7e especially I specifically have the stunt bonus dice add to everything in that stunt that isn't a damage roll.

[tyckspoon]

Stunting is appropriate for systems where you:
- want a mechanic to cover the gap between 'things characters can explicitly do' and 'things characters should be able to do'; in this case, you aren't giving stunt bonuses to make people better at what their normal options are, like you don't want to just give a plus hit/damage to somebody's standard attack option - you're giving the stunt bonus to help make up for the fact that the character probably doesn't have any normal bonuses relevant to what they're trying to stunt. It helps get around the issues some systems can have where characters are only good at the explicit powers/skills/'buttons' that are written on their character sheet.
and/or
- where it is a central conceit of the game setting/style that it isn't sufficient to just achieve a challenge - what is important is to do so as stylishly as possible. Martial arts games, swashbucklers, and games that take significant cues from those genres are where you will often find this. Consider the following scenes/player actions where a character has been.. oh, let's say taken prisoner on an enemy boat and is making an escape:

"I scurry along the edge of the ship, staying low and weaving between obstacles to limit visibility so they can't easily see me. When I make it to where our lifeboat is I slip over the side as quietly as I can."

"I use my hidden knife to cut loose a rigging line and use it to swing across from the forecastle to the edge of the ship. There, silhoutted against the setting sun, I turn and blow a kiss to the ship's cute First Mate before gracefully diving overboard."

If your system should encourage the second over the first, stunting is appropriate. If your response to the second is "the entire ships crew shoots you. You are dead, roll a new character, you idiot" then stunting is not a good fit for your system/intended playstyle.

[Satinavian]

So is this true? Does anyone have experienced with published games with good stunting rules? Do people generally ignore them, or just take the bonus as an entitlement with no narrative component?It works for the right players in the right system.

It would never work with Bob and it seems it doesn't work with your new player. And most importantly, it seems like a very bad fit for your Heart of Darkness system.

[gbaji]

I think your player did usefully point out an issue with your stunting system that you ignored; it's mechanically optimal for characters to built around a specific stat to stunt, and probably not very good for characters who aren't built around that stat to even attempt it. Most stunt systems are just RP stuff well = minor bonus, not making a roll to see if you can get a +2 and getting a -2 if you fail. I usually drop it in combat heavy systems because there's only so many ways to describe swinging a sword that are interesting. Players who want to narrate their actions in detail will do so with or without the presence of a stunt system, so I usually only bother with something like it around newer players who don't realize that's even an option, and I've nearly always wound up dropping it.

Going to second this idea. My personal view is that mechanics and RP should be kept separate as much as possible. I would certainly be very very hesitant to provide actual mechanical bonuses for RP (for the exact reasons the OP highlights).

If you are playing a RP heavy non-crunch game, then mechanical bonuses are inappropriate. The GM should just say "hey that was great, I'll come up with something great in response". And we move on. Bonuses in such systems are like the points in "Whose line?". They just don't matter.

If you are playing a crunchier game, then it's also inappropriate, because "what you are actually doing", should have some in game mechanical definition with already existing mechanical rules, bonuses, etc that apply. RP is great. It's fun. But it's done only for the enjoyment of doing RP (and can, of course, be used for social parts of the game, but even then may act merely as "color" while actual skill rolls are used for resolution).


And yeah. Actually providing a roll to get the bonus, but then also requiring the RP? That's just not a great idea at all. You *can* choose to provide bonuses for RP, but then it should be for the actual RP. But if your rules system says "if you make a dex roll at <whatever target>, you get +2, but if you fail you get a -2", then those are the rules. The player is mechanically attempting a tricky/sneaky/clever/whatever maneuver, and risking suffering a minus, for the chance of getting a plus. That's a purely mechanical rule (which is perfectly fine). Adding in a RP element is just meaningless IMO.

[Reversefigure4]

It works for the right players in the right system.

It would never work with Bob and it seems it doesn't work with your new player. And most importantly, it seems like a very bad fit for your Heart of Darkness system.

Bingo. No stunting system I've seen anywhere would survive Bob, because stunting and min-maxing don't work well together. If it requires an Agility test, he'll either build for Agility or moan about how the system 'forces' him to play an Agile character. If you have to describe it, you'll get "I do a cool flip" each round. If it requires a different stunt to be performed each round (a common mechanic, because swinging from a chandlier once is cool, but doing it every round is silly), Bob will simply work through a printed list of ten things then start over again. "I flip. Round 2, I smirk. Round 3, I balance on one foot. Round 4, I say something about his mother", each and every combat.

Something like Exalted, where the math assumes you'll stunt every round, eventually boils out all the cool descriptors because you're going to play out hundreds of rounds of combat over the campaign, and even the best player will lose energy for it after a while. Something like 4E, where stunts are sub-optimal, discourage you from using them because the alternatives are better.

The best systems I've seen having stunting as a limited option, both limited mechanically by some minor cost, and limited by the nature of the scene. Yes, you can swing off the chandelier, and it will give you a +2 to hit... but it only works if you make an easy Acrobatics check, and it'll only work in this particular fight in the ballroom. It's more of a terrain option than an always on thing. Or you have a FATE game which has "Time For Some Dashing Heroics" as a Campaign Aspect. Yes, you can tag it with any stunt-y descriptor, and it gives you a medium sized-bonus... but it costs a Fate Point, which are a limited resource.

Any stunt system should, IMO, start with "Why wouldn't everyone do this every round, all the time?" And if the answer is "They would", then you might as well bake that into the math, give everyone the +2 all the time, and assume the PCs are doing cool things.

The other alternative is where you pay the PCs for doing cool things. Ie, tyckspoons "Diving off the ship and blowing a kiss to the first mate" doesn't make that action any better, but gives you a Style Dice to spend on a future cool thing. Even then, you won't get around Bob's "I do a cool thing, give me a Style Dice" or "fine, I narrate the cool thing from my pre-prescribed list of Things Talakeal Agreed Are Cool, give me a Style Dice."

[Talakeal]

These are all really good points.

I really want to enable cinematic feats for people playing Jackie Chan / Errol Flynn style characters, but at the same time, but I want it to be an occasional cool bonus, not an every round thing that makes swashbucklers innately superior to every other sort of combatant.

This is going to be a tough circle to square.


"I scurry along the edge of the ship, staying low and weaving between obstacles to limit visibility so they can't easily see me. When I make it to where our lifeboat is I slip over the side as quietly as I can."

"I use my hidden knife to cut loose a rigging line and use it to swing across from the forecastle to the edge of the ship. There, silhouetted against the setting sun, I turn and blow a kiss to the ship's cute First Mate before gracefully diving overboard."

If your system should encourage the second over the first, stunting is appropriate. If your response to the second is "the entire ships crew shoots you. You are dead, roll a new character, you idiot" then stunting is not a good fit for your system/intended playstyle.

Not sure if my *system* cares about one or the other. I certainly would prefer to run / play for the latter though.

[Telok]

These are all really good points.

I really want to enable cinematic feats for people playing Jackie Chan / Errol Flynn style characters, but at the same time, but I want it to be an occasional cool bonus, not an every round thing that makes swashbucklers innately superior to every other sort of combatant.

This is going to be a tough circle to square.

You put a cost or limit on it then. Mana or... what was the other one, focus? And then put the result effect level on par with the HoD cantrip spells with a similar target number roll. Or stick it at a limit of 'destiny per scene' times to stunt but punt it up to something like add a free combat maneuver or metamagic (maybe limit maybe +4 maybe)? There's lots of options. Look across your records for a frequently under used resource and see if you can peg "what Jackie Chan / Errol Flyn should do" to a mechanical level of benefit for it.

[TaiLiu]

These are all really good points.

I really want to enable cinematic feats for people playing Jackie Chan / Errol Flynn style characters, but at the same time, but I want it to be an occasional cool bonus, not an every round thing that makes swashbucklers innately superior to every other sort of combatant.

This is going to be a tough circle to square.
Could something like modified inspiration from D&D 5e work? A player has a really crucial character moment or does something super cool, so you tell them to roll twice and take the higher number.

[Satinavian]

I really want to enable cinematic feats for people playing Jackie Chan / Errol Flynn style characters, but at the same time, but I want it to be an occasional cool bonus, not an every round thing that makes swashbucklers innately superior to every other sort of combatant.

You could make it an ability that has to be purchased with character build points and can be invoked to give an action a set bonus once per session and requires the player to give a cool description. You might also allow it to be bought several times for several uses per session.

Now people might still put less than envisioned effort into the description, but that is the worst that can happen. It can't be spammed anymore, it does no longer synergize with a certain stat, reduzing the min-max-potential, it is balanced and it stops being a reward for cool descriptions which would always be a seed of arguments. And because it is a limited ressource, you can assume it will be mostly used at the most dramatic moments.

[Vahnavoi]

@Talakeal: what you describe in your first post is not a stunt system. It is a badly named circumstance bonus. (Gating it behind a die roll and specific ability is just pointless at this level of detail.)

Why does the name matter? Well, when you call a mechanic such as this circumstance or situational bonus, it tips the players that the bonus is granted based on circumstance or situation. It communicates they have to keep their eyes on what's going on in the game. It also allows a game master to telegraph situations to benefit from this.

"Character does something cool" is too vague of a circumstance. Since it's also subjective, it's liable for causing tension between what player thinks is cool and what a game master thinks is cool. You CAN make a working game on this basis, but it requires players to accept whoever does the evaluation (game master or other players) as an authority on coolness, which your players are unwilling to accept and you are unwilling to really be.

Requiring narration to get the bonus is fine. It is, in fact, necessary: nothing happens in a tabletop roleplaying game unless someone at the table describes it happening (duh). But here's the thing, and here's where we get to a major design flaw in various "stunt" systems that inspired yours: game mechanics already provide description. In some cases (and specifically in case of White Wolf games), the developers just failed to check whether their base game actually creates what they consider genre-approriate or interesting outcomes. So, when they realize it doesn't, they end up bolting on something like your "stunt" system (or some other more freeform solution compared to rest of their system) on top of everything to allow for the kind of actions that they forgot to facilitate from the get-go. It does not materially improve on the basic mechanic of "any action not listed can be attempted on a game master's approval".

It would be much better for a rules-heavy game (and I consider your game to be rules heavy) for the cool stuff to emerge from the basic mechanics. That's what all those mechanics are there for, right? To describe and facilitate events in the staged situation of your game. If your basic mechanics cannot create cool and interesting outcomes in this bottom-up manner, go back and see why that is instead of trying to get there in a way that bypasses those mechanics.

But, there's an even deeper flaw in many designs that starts with dubious notion of player psychology. So, as some above noted, you're effectively trying to bribe players to provide interesting narration with game points.

Why do you need to do that?

If your answer is "because I want cool and interesting narration, it's good for the game", you didn't think deep enough. If fancy narration is cool and interesting, those are already reasons to do it.. If it is good for the game, experience it will direct people towards it. You don't need bribes.

A bribe, implicitly, exists to get people to do something they aren't inclined to. If you have to bribe your players to do fancy narration, then that suggests the premise that fancy narration is cool and interesting and good for the game is incorrect, or at least the players don't see it that way. With your infamous "Bob", this is very clear-cut. Bob sees the game as numbers and will always nakedly lobby for numerical advantage. Bob is either unwilling or unable to see value in fancy narration. Therefore, any attempt to bribe Bob to add narration will result in Bob doing the exact minimum required go get the mechanical benefit, or not even that if they can get you to let them off the hook by complaining long and loud enough. If you want to see fancy narration, the solution isn't to bribe players like Bob, it's to explain to them the game doesn't work the way they think it does and then, if they don't want to play the actual game infront of them, stop playing with them.

[Just to Browse]

I think stoutstein and Zanos (stupid autocorrect) have it exactly right. I've seen this behavior with games like Exalted as well. Dungeons: the Dragoning runs into similar issues. When it's always optimal to stunt, you will always do it, which means players are incentivized to invent mini-fiction every time they try to do anything. That can get really draining, especially in games like Exalted where attacks happen pretty frequently. You usually end up with some mixture of players who (1) describe 100 variations on "I stab that guy" because their strategies aren't changing, and/or (2) ask for stunt bonuses with minimal / no effort ("I do a flip off the wall").

Consider why you want a stunt system in the first place. Your goal and the current mechanic might not line up as well as you initially intended. Are you just trying to get your PCs to describe their actions on their turn? Are you trying to create occasional high-excitement moments? Are you looking for a storytelling tool that gives your players some extra narrative control?

EDIT: autocorrect messed up someone's name and didn't fix any of my typos....

[gbaji]

Consider why you want a "stunt" system in the first place. Your goal and the current mechsnic might not line up as well as you initially intended.

Yeah. My tendency is to reward players when they come up with cool ideas/actions on a mostly one on one basis. The default is "here are the rules, and they say what you can do, what your chances are, what the outcomes are, etc". But occasionally, someone will want to do something that kinda fits with a rule, but is also really cool, interesting, dramatic, whatever. And yeah, when that happens, I'll allow for a greater effect than the rules might naturally allow, or give some "situational bonus". But it's not written down. It's subject to the GM agreeing that this is a cool idea/action, and enabling it in some way.

This is certainly going to be GM specific though. And certainly, some players may chafe at this because it makes these things subjective, and GMs are not perfect. So there's always the chance of GMs favoring some players over others, or some actions over others, or allowing/disallowing such things to favor their own narrative rather than the players. Yeah. That's a thing that can happen. Bad GMs are going to be horrible with this sort of thing. But then, they're going to be horrible with a ton of other things in a RPG anyway, so....?

A decent to good GM, on the other hand, should be able to recognize when something the player is proposing is interesting, exciting, dramatic, and has an effect/impact on the scene *but* isn't over the top crazy and/or rule-breaking (game theme dependent of course!), and will allow such things. No need for special rules. In fact, I'd argue that the more you specify rules for this sort of thing the less likely it is to actually be used in the spirit in which we presumably expect.

The whole "swing across the room and behind the opponent on a chandelier" is a classic example. Most games aren't going to have specific rules covering this. In fact, in most games, the guy taking his feet off of firm ground, and spinning around in the air is likely just putting himself at a combat disadvantage, right? I mean, you're not just flat footed, you're no footed. You are likely provoking attack of opportunity as you pass thorugh/near the opponents space. And you're pretty darn helpless while doing so. Mechanically, it's probably a terrible idea. You should just use a move action to move up to the opponent and attack, right? But hey. On the super rare occasion when you're on one side of a room, an opponent is on the other, and there's a chandelier that you *could* swing on to move around on, and the player says they want to do so? Why not? Call it an unexpected/surprise action. Call for some kind of dex/acrobatics/whatever roll. Let it happen. And yeah, give some minor advantage if pulled off (you get around/behind the opponent, get one attack as though flanking, whatever). Why not?

These are the moments that players remember and talk about years later. So... Let. Them. Happen. As a GM, it costs you nothing to do this, and adds a lot to a game. But yeah, the moment you actually create mechanical rules to handle this? I've found that this takes the "magic" out of them, and just turns this into another decision/action by the characters, no different than anything else. It becomes more mechanical. That can still be a ton of fun to play, but it's not quite the same. If every scene expects the PCs to do cool and interesting things, as part of normal play (and there are whole game systems that revolve around this), then it's just that: Normal Play.

Over a decade later, my game group still talks about the time the party was invited to a feast by some powerful folks, only to discover there was a massive assassination plot going on (by folks who had a special invisibility spell that only worked against people aligned with a specific deity, which affected the hosts, but not the party). So they're watching as "servants" take up positions behind each of their hosts, sitting at the main table in the hall, but are not acknowledged by their hosts. Then realize that these people are pulling out nasty looking knives with some kind of liquid on them (poision). One of the PCs responded by shouting out, jumping on their table, pickiing up a large platter and hurling it at the knife arm of the assassin going after the leader of their hosts. Now, the game has no specific rule for "thrown platter attack", nor, specifically for "tossing it, captain america style, so as to knock the knife away from the assassins hand". But yeah, I just had him make a generic throw roll, and applied "rule of cool" to the encounter, and allowed it to disrupt the attack, and alert the rest of their hosts to danger. And then, a big melee broke out.

I absolutely could have lumped a boatload of negatives on the roll, making it nearly impossible to do (seriously, how many people have tried to do something like this, and what do you suspect your odds of success would be the very first time you try?). But that's not "fun", and at the end of the day, it had a minor effect on the primary outcome of the encounter anyway (cause the whole thing was set up for the PCs to notice and disrupt the attack anyway, right?). To be honest, just shouting out a warning would have at leaast been sufficent to allow the targets to count as "aware of a threat", and therefore not subject to automatic backstab effects (which are brutal iin the system we were playing). But this was dramatic. It was fun. So yeah. I totally allowed it.

But here's what didn't happen. The character who did this, didn't spend the rest of his adventuring career carrying a large platter around as a weapon and using it to knock opponents weapons out of their hands as a normal combat action. The moment something becomes a normal every day action, I'm going to apply normal every day rules to it. And guess what? There's probably a reason why you don't find any historical records of great warriors who fought by carrying platters around and knocking their opponents weapons out of their hands and then defeating them because of this incredible tactic (Xena and Captain America excepted, but they are fictional, right?). Because, realistically, there are better weapons to carry around and use.

[Rynjin]

But here's what didn't happen. The character who did this, didn't spend the rest of his adventuring career carrying a large platter around as a weapon and using it to knock opponents weapons out of their hands as a normal combat action. The moment something becomes a normal every day action, I'm going to apply normal every day rules to it. And guess what? There's probably a reason why you don't find any historical records of great warriors who fought by carrying platters around and knocking their opponents weapons out of their hands and then defeating them because of this incredible tactic (Xena and Captain America excepted, but they are fictional, right?). Because, realistically, there are better weapons to carry around and use.

I played a character who carried around a really sturdy chair to beat people over the head with for half a campaign but he was an optimized Improvised Weapons user and could have done t with any weapon; I just thought a chair was funniest.

As to the actual thread topic, consequences are only worthwhile if you codify and stick to them. A system I play (Final Fantasy d6) has a rule that if you don't describe an attack (eg. if you just say "I attack" or "I cast Fira") it automatically misses/fails.

Enforcing it ensures it's a real rule and not just fluff.

If Bob isn't sufficiently describing his action, don't give him the bonus. Simple as.

[SethoMarkus]

~~snip~~

All of this. Fancy narration and "stunts" should be their own reward for doing something cool and fun, for adding flavor and theatrics to the character's actions; or, used to attempt an action that is technically outside the rules, but fits within the theme and narrative already in play. Trying to codify these stunts into the rules will only make them another means of mechanical optimization, so better to add them as a resource based option. But then that is a step away from it being a "stunt", and just circles around to it being a game option.

If the goal is to encourage and increase player narration and investment in "doing cool things", you might have better luck with leading by example and directly asking players for narration. Describe actions that NPCs take with a flourish of words, give vivid descriptions of the effects of the PCs actions, and give details about scenery and environment that the players could take advantage of, and then give descriptions of that environment being interacted with to show the players that they can do this too. Ask the players to describe their actions; not all the time, but at dramatically appropriate moments. "What does that [attack] look like to you?" "How do you cast the spell, what form does your magic take?" "How do you want to do this?" "Badass! Does your character strike a pose afterwards?"

Leas the players to have fun with it, and I'd you see fit to reward their stunts in game with a bonus or mechanical benefit, make it small but beneficial. Let them take an action without the normal consequences, or give them a token of some sort they can use for a bonus later, or give them the equivalent of advantage. But whatever you reward them with, if anything, make it clear it is because of the extra effort and uniqueness of the situation. Making a cool attack by flipping over a banister onto the floor below is a cool stunt when done once for dramatic effect, but it's just how the character behaves if it's on every attack, every combat. If there is a reward, it is for thinking creatively and adding to the fun, not for fulfilling a minimum mechanical criteria. If you want to completely avoid it being taken advantage of though, it's better to not guarantee an in-game reward at all, other than allowing the creative action to take place.

[BRC]

Eh, this sort of bonus doesn't really work with the Bob-Mindset, the Bobset as it were.

The goal here is to encourage players to think creatively, get invested in the narrative, and do cool stuff besides saying "I attack".

The fact is, especially if you make it a dexterity check, there's no way to Bob-proof such a mechanic. "I do a stunt, I roll, I get the bonus" will always happen if you make it reliably achievable. It's impossible to build a hard rule around "Do something cool and creative". It should be a more general rule around "Here's how to handle if the PC's want to do something cool that isn't quite covered by the normal rules". Stunting should be more about enabling cool stuff than handing out rewards.

Bob will hate me for suggesting this, but from a rules perspective, you should go vague with Stunt rules. Don't say "To do a stunt, make X dexterity check and, if successful, receive Y Reward".

I think that a Stunt should fulfill three criteria

1) It should be Novel, you can't repeat a stunt, certainly not within the same scene.

2) It should Give You A Clear Advantage. "I do a flip off the wall, then attack them with my sword" doesn't clearly translate to any sort of advantage. "I throw my dagger so it momentarily pins their dumb flowing robes to the floor, then attack them with my sword" DOES make sense as an advantage.

3) It should be cool, and make the game more fun.


Stunts should be primarily about enabling things not directly covered by the game mechanics, encouraging creative play rather than just creative descriptions or good dexterity scores.

It will be impossible to truly bob-proof this mechanic. The closest you can get is to say that it happens at GM discretion, Bob will hate that and call you a cruel tyrant who hates fun. No mechanic survives contact with sufficiently ill-intentioned players.


A basic rule you might try to implement is "One Stunt per scene". Arguably, this is a decent rule anyway, as the alternative to Bob's "I do a stunt" before every swing is for players to slow down gameplay by turning every sword-stroke into a ballet.

[tyckspoon]

It will be impossible to truly bob-proof this mechanic. The closest you can get is to say that it happens at GM discretion, Bob will hate that and call you a cruel tyrant who hates fun. No mechanic survives contact with sufficiently ill-intentioned players.

Yup. This is another one of the cases where 'is this a good game mechanic' needs to be disentangled from 'what does Bob think about it', because Bob has a very specific approach to what he thinks is good mechanics (and as best as I can tell from what has been presented to us, it is largely centered around 'it makes the number go up' purely as a mechanical exercise, with an active dislike of anything that intersects with 'how does this actually work in the fictional reality.' Doesn't matter, number go up and if you prevent number go up then it's actively hostile to the players.) How Bob wants to interact with this isn't a Stunt - in the idiom of Hearts of Darkness, it'd probably be a combat maneuver. Something like 'Acrobatic Assault: You use your agility to strike from unexpected angles. Make an agility test against (pick a difficulty.) If you succeed, you get a +2 to hit with this attack. If you fail, you instead suffer a -2. You can only use this maneuver when you can move freely and there is open space around your enemy.' Then the specialization in it if a character wants to make this their Thing would reduce or eliminate the fail penalty, make the stat check easier, or some other thing that in some way makes it more reliable to attempt.

(I don't think the stunt as Talakeal has described it is a good implementation of stunting, but that's discrete from 'what does Bob think about it.')

[BRC]

Yup. This is another one of the cases where 'is this a good game mechanic' needs to be disentangled from 'what does Bob think about it', because Bob has a very specific approach to what he thinks is good mechanics (and as best as I can tell from what has been presented to us, it is largely centered around 'it makes the number go up' purely as a mechanical exercise, with an active dislike of anything that intersects with 'how does this actually work in the fictional reality.' Doesn't matter, number go up and if you prevent number go up then it's actively hostile to the players.) How Bob wants to interact with this isn't a Stunt - in the idiom of Hearts of Darkness, it'd probably be a combat maneuver. Something like 'Acrobatic Assault: You use your agility to strike from unexpected angles. Make an agility test against (pick a difficulty.) If you succeed, you get a +2 to hit with this attack. If you fail, you instead suffer a -2. You can only use this maneuver when you can move freely and there is open space around your enemy.' Then the specialization in it if a character wants to make this their Thing would reduce or eliminate the fail penalty, make the stat check easier, or some other thing that in some way makes it more reliable to attempt.

(I don't think the stunt as Talakeal has described it is a good implementation of stunting, but that's discrete from 'what does Bob think about it.')

Bob's approach is to get the maximum mechanical benefit with the minimal effort, applied to all aspects of the game. That's actually a useful perspective for a playtester to take, breaking things down to "What is this mechanic directly incentivizing". But it's not something Bob can turn off, hence the problem.

In this case, the stunt mechanic as written directly incentivizes PC's with sufficiently high dexterity to do a backflip every time they make an attack.

[Jay R]

A. I once invented a similar rule for Flashing Blades, because it fit the Flashing Blades genre – swashbuckling Musketeer-era adventure.


A character with Acrobatics skill may choose to add it to his combat moves. Thus, "lunge" becomes "spin and close", "step back" becomes "back somersault", etc. If he makes his Acrobatics roll, the action works at +1 (due primarily to surprise) and it looks very impressive. If the character misses his Acrobatics roll, his action fails as if he had rolled a possible fumble: roll again to confirm. This can only be done when it makes sense. One can neither shoot a gun acrobatically, nor add cartwheels to a parry. Also, it only adds +1 to actions that imply movement, such as lunge, dodge, tackle, etc.

It worked well with the players I had, because they were the type of players who enjoy thinking about that.

Note also that since it only affects certain combat moves, it cannot be done every round.

B. Bob is correct that some players will have no interest in the subgame of describing interesting cinematic stunts. He is wrong that “nobody will actually narrate their stunts”. Bob’s statement, like almost any other statement that all people will play just like he does, is simply false. All people don’t play the same way. But yes, of course, some people will play like Bob.

C. Bob does not want to describe an image in his head. He isn’t forming images in his head. He is formulating tactics in words. You will not ever get him to form images in his head and describe them. He isn't thinking about a cinematic move, and doesn't want to; he's thinking about a rule.

D. Bob is absolutely correct that many people will try to optimize their strategy. There is nothing wrong with that; there is certainly a strategic component to the game. If I were the GM (and I were trying to get him to do that), I would describe the rule in tactical terms, not cinematic ones. “You cannot make an attack roll until you tell me what weapon you are using, what opponent you are striking, and (if relevant) what special action you are taking. For the same reason, you cannot take a cinematic stunt roll without telling me what cinematic stunt you are attempting.”

E. If I were the GM (and I were trying to get him to do that), I would tell Bob: “This is supposed to be a special moment. If you want the bonus for a special moment, convince me that this is a special moment.”

F. I would also tell the new rogue: “That’s the same stunt you just used. He is now expecting it, and if you do it, you will get the -2 for failing to surprise him. You only get a benefit for doing something unexpected.” I would also tell him that before he rolled. This is a rule; he should know it before taking the action.

G. If it improves the odds of success, of course the players will do it in every round if they can. That’s just competent tactical play – similar to using the longsword +2 each round instead of a non-magical longsword. If you don’t want it every round, don’t allow it every round. I might allow it to work once or twice against each opponent, and never twice in a row. From my Rules for DMS:

38. b. Think about a movie where you've seen something like this happen. Did the hero do it often? Probably the player should be allowed to do it often. Did the hero do it once, as a desperate move, at the big finish? Then save it for the big finish.

H. Having the GM judge the player’s fluff for mechanical advantage cannot work unless the DM is fully on the players’ side, and the players fully believe it. That doesn’t seem likely, given the descriptions you’ve given us of that game. I don’t think the subgame of describing a cinematic move will add value for these players in this situation.

[gbaji]

F. I would also tell the new rogue: “That’s the same stunt you just used. He is now expecting it, and if you do it, you will get the -2 for failing to surprise him. You only get a benefit for doing something unexpected.” I would also tell him that before he rolled. This is a rule; he should know it before taking the action.

Bob: He'd never expect me to use the same move twice in a row! :smallsmile:

Lots of great ideas on how to handle this. Obviously, this is game system/theme dependent, but I might lean somewhat towards "one stunt per scene". Might also lean against "roll to get a plus, but fail means a minus". That feels like a regular combat action mechanic to me. Depending on how crunchy your rules are, I might even lean heavily towards "describe your stunt and how you think it will/should work", folllowed by the GM just assigning some bonus as a result of the RP description itseslf.

The combination both limits things "have to pick your time/spot to do something heroic/whatever", and also strongly encourages both well thought out and well described stunts. It is subject to GM vagarities though, so some may not like it. And yeah, it's going to tend to punish more, shall we say... "technical" players. So this is very much game table specific. Some players just love to describe at length every little thing their charaters are doing, including full voice and action displays. Other players just want to say "My character does <some game specific action/skill>".

I'm all for encouraging RP in players, but if someone just doesn't want to go all out on that, I'm not going to penalizze/punish them for it either. But I think even the RP adverse folks should be able to handle "describe what you are doing" type things. And if there is a tangible benefit to doing so, it can be a good thing.

[Just to Browse]

GM vagaries can also get very annoying, funneling players towards "can I please the GM with my narration to get this bonus?" and funneling GMs towards "consider your players' actions on an ad-hoc basis". As a player, I want real agency over my behavior instead of trying to guess whether the GM will think my somersault with a sideswipe is sufficiently different from my somersault with with a stab. As a GM, I want to focus on interesting parts of each encounter instead of adjudicating the bonus of a given stunt on demand.

[gbaji]

GM vagaries can also get very annoying, funneling players towards "can I please the GM with my narration to get this bonus?" and funneling GMs towards "consider your players' actions on an ad-hoc basis". As a player, I want real agency over my behavior instead of trying to guess whether the GM will think my somersault with a sideswipe is sufficiently different from my somersault with with a stab. As a GM, I want to focus on interesting parts of each encounter instead of adjudicating the bonus of a given stunt on demand.

Agree completely. I'd only recommend the "GM decides how much bonus effect" if we were doing at most a "once a scene" sort of deal. The intention there is that you should be looking at the situation, deciding when best to use your "one stunt", and really thinking up something clever if you actually want to get some bonus points for it. Just saying "I'm going to backflip and then stab the guy" isn't going to cut it at all in this sort of thing.

eh. And I'd also add in "must be environment specific". Meaning that the PCs action must take into account some sort of somewhat unique aspect of the environment they are operating in. If you can do the described action pretty much anywhere? It doesn't count. You can only swing on a chandelier when there's a chadelier (and it, you, and your oponent/target are aligned properly). You can only slide down a bannister if there is, in fact, a bannister. You can only slide down the tapestry to get from the balacony to the ground level, knocking over the guards below, if there is, in fact, a balacony (and you are on it), some guards/enemies down below said balacony, and tapestries conveniently located that hang from said balcony and down to the approximate location your hapless victims are.

Those kinds of things are what I'm looking for here. And sure. In most environments, players should be able to find something "interesting" they can do with the objects/terrain/furniture/whatever, to do this sort of thing. But it forces them to actually think about where they are, what they are trying to do, and how to describe the resulting proposed action. They do all of that? Yeah. I'll give them a bonus.

But to your point, yeah, I also agree that you have to be very careful about "GM assigned" rewards for things like this. As you say, it can turn the game from "making the best/correct objective decisions/actions" to "amusing the GM". But to be honest, I've seen that play out in games that didn't have any sort of stunt type of rules at all anyway. Pretty much all GMs have likes and dislikes about various things (we're all human). And some GMs have a hard time stepping out of their personal preferences/amusements to be more objective when it comes to player actions and outcomes. And in those situations, players tend to learn what types of things/ideas/behaviors the GMs like and which they don't, and may choose to play to those things. Don't need any special rules for this to happen though.

[Reversefigure4]

Let's try Bob-setting (an excellent phrase!) a few of these to see how they hold up!


You put a cost or limit on it then. Mana or... what was the other one, focus? And then put the result effect level on par with the HoD cantrip spells with a similar target number roll.

"This is mechanically inefficient, so nobody should ever trying stunting".


Could something like modified inspiration from D&D 5e work? A player has a really crucial character moment or does something super cool, so you tell them to roll twice and take the higher number.

"I *checks notes* think of my dead father and there is a tear in my eye. Crucial character moment achieved. Next round, I think of my dead sister and sing a little song to her memory." Or "It's a crucial character moment to win this fight, since my character is about winning all the time".


You could make it an ability that has to be purchased with character build points...

Better, but it's still "Once per scene, I do The Stunt Thing and add +2 to my roll. Nobody is ever going to bother describing these, and you're a bad GM for trying to make me".


If they don't want to play the actual game infront of them, stop playing with them.

This one IS a Bob-proof solution!


A basic rule you might try to implement is "One Stunt per scene". Arguably, this is a decent rule anyway, as the alternative to Bob's "I do a stunt" before every swing is for players to slow down gameplay by turning every sword-stroke into a ballet.

This I'd go with. It isn't Bob-proof, because all you get it "Once per scene, I do The Stunt and add my +2" (and then we argue about when scenes begin and end, referencing events that occurred five years ago).


H. Having the GM judge the player’s fluff for mechanical advantage cannot work unless the DM is fully on the players’ side, and the players fully believe it. That doesn’t seem likely, given the descriptions you’ve given us of that game. I don’t think the subgame of describing a cinematic move will add value for these players in this situation.

Agreed. Stunting requires the players to believe the GM wants to see them do awesome things, and for the GM to be encouraging them... so it fails in the Anti-Trust group that Talakeal runs.

[Just to Browse]

I don't think "2 players want to play optimally and don't care to invent new flavor text for every attack" can be honestly summarized as an "anti-trust group". Any attempts to fix the current stunt system (and any attempts to write a new one) will be worse if they're written with this kind of adversarial mindset.

[BRC]

I don't think "2 players want to play optimally and don't care to invent new flavor text for every attack" can be honestly summarized as an "anti-trust group". Any attempts to fix the current stunt system (and any attempts to write a new one) will be worse if they're written with this kind of adversarial mindset.

Anti-trust group is context from elsewhere.

Tala's group assumes a pretty adversarial stance with the GM, and is fond of assuming that every defeat was the result of the GM tricking them or otherwise locking them into an unwinnable situation.

[Segev]

Stunting in Exalted 2e had three tiers:

A one-die stunt is literally anything more than "I attack the goblin." If they narrate their attack at all, even just saying something like, "Bob swings his sword at the goblin," that's a 1-die stunt.
A two-die stunt incorporates or modifies the environment. The "modifies" part is...very GM-dependent as to what is allowed, but "incorporates" basically means, "did the player take advantage of something the GM described as being present in the scene?" Whether it's the positioning of the other goblins, the ability to use steps for high-ground advantage, kicking dust up off the dry, dingy floor into the monsters' eyes... those are 2-die stunts. (The "modify" thing is best handled as evaluating whether something that the player wants to say has always been there for him to use in his stunt makes sense with the environment as described. Maybe the GM didn't describe the torches on the walls as filling the room with smoke, but if they reasonably would and the player wants to take advantage of the smoke he says is there in his action, that would also be a 2-die stunt.
A three-die stunt is something so amazing and perfect that everyone drops their jaws. If you have any question about it being worth 3 dice, it isn't.

In Exalted, it's expected that most stunts will be 2 dice. Players are, ideally, doing something with the environment in their action every time. That said, a stunt repeated is generally worth one less die each time. Especially in the same scene.

Bob sounds like he'd wind up doing one-die stunts an awful lot because he doesn't want to bother, but you never know: if you point out that the secret to getting stunts is doing clever things with the environment, he might min/max use of the environment.

[Just to Browse]

Anti-trust group is context from elsewhere.

Tala's group assumes a pretty adversarial stance with the GM, and is fond of assuming that every defeat was the result of the GM tricking them or otherwise locking them into an unwinnable situation.

Ahh the ol' "social issue presented as a rules issue". I should have guessed it lol.

[Talakeal]

So I had another conversation with Bob.

First off, he is insisting that I am cheating because the rules don't explicitly say it can't be the same stunt every turn, and therefore I am making up rules to screw him. Of course, he doesn't even bother saying the same stunt every turn, because if we already know what he is doing, what's the point in telling us?

Second, he is convinced that the purpose of the rule is to make a player entertain the rest of the table with the quality of his narration, and thinks that I am somehow judging the quality of said narration against some arbitrary standard to get some bonus. This isn't true of course, the idea is to reward players for clever ideas and reinforce the swashbucler character archetypes.

Honestly, it reminded me a lot of Brian and Dave telling me that they shouldn't have to tell me what they are saying to an NPC, instead they should just "roll diplomacy" and get what they want. They have for years insisted that I am somehow grading them on the eloquence of their speech, and say that isn't fair because they are playing charismatic characters, but if they were charismatic irl they would be out talking to girls instead of playing an RPG. Of course, eloquence never factors into it, I merely need to know what they want, what they are offering, and what approach they are using so that I can said the DC for said diplomacy roll.


How Bob wants to interact with this isn't a Stunt - in the idiom of Hearts of Darkness, it'd probably be a combat maneuver. Something like 'Acrobatic Assault: You use your agility to strike from unexpected angles. Make an agility test against (pick a difficulty.) If you succeed, you get a +2 to hit with this attack. If you fail, you instead suffer a -2. You can only use this maneuver when you can move freely and there is open space around your enemy.' Then the specialization in it if a character wants to make this their Thing would reduce or eliminate the fail penalty, make the stat check easier, or some other thing that in some way makes it more reliable to attempt.

That's actually almost exactly how it is worded, just with the caveat that the player must narrate the nature of the feat they first.

Without the above to limit its use, it is, imo, just OP compared to other manuevers, and makes lightly armored swashbuckler types just flat out superior to other fighters.


Stunting in Exalted 2e had three tiers:

A one-die stunt is literally anything more than "I attack the goblin." If they narrate their attack at all, even just saying something like, "Bob swings his sword at the goblin," that's a 1-die stunt.
A two-die stunt incorporates or modifies the environment. The "modifies" part is...very GM-dependent as to what is allowed, but "incorporates" basically means, "did the player take advantage of something the GM described as being present in the scene?" Whether it's the positioning of the other goblins, the ability to use steps for high-ground advantage, kicking dust up off the dry, dingy floor into the monsters' eyes... those are 2-die stunts. (The "modify" thing is best handled as evaluating whether something that the player wants to say has always been there for him to use in his stunt makes sense with the environment as described. Maybe the GM didn't describe the torches on the walls as filling the room with smoke, but if they reasonably would and the player wants to take advantage of the smoke he says is there in his action, that would also be a 2-die stunt.
A three-die stunt is something so amazing and perfect that everyone drops their jaws. If you have any question about it being worth 3 dice, it isn't.

In Exalted, it's expected that most stunts will be 2 dice. Players are, ideally, doing something with the environment in their action every time. That said, a stunt repeated is generally worth one less die each time. Especially in the same scene.

Bob sounds like he'd wind up doing one-die stunts an awful lot because he doesn't want to bother, but you never know: if you point out that the secret to getting stunts is doing clever things with the environment, he might min/max use of the environment.

You left out the important part, that it has to be something new. That's the part my players have the real problem with; not being able to say the same five word "I flip off the wall" before every attack to get the bonus.

[Vahnavoi]

So I had another conversation with Bob.

First off, he is insisting that I am cheating because the rules don't explicitly say it can't be the same stunt every turn, and therefore I am making up rules to screw him. Of course, he doesn't even bother saying the same stunt every turn, because if we already know what he is doing, what's the point in telling us?

Repeat after me: "I am the author and active designer of this game. If a rule is leading to degenerate play because I forgot to specify the same stunt can't be attempted in succession, the natural course of action for me is to go back and patch that rule so it works the way I want. If this screws you over, it's fine. You were never meant to have that advantage in the first place."


Second, he is convinced that the purpose of the rule is to make a player entertain the rest of the table with the quality of his narration, and thinks that I am somehow judging the quality of said narration against some arbitrary standard to get some bonus. This isn't true of course, the idea is to reward players for clever ideas and reinforce the swashbucler character archetypes.

Stop here for moment. Firstly, the point of fancy narration is to entertain the rest of table. It's a good chunk of why people other than Bob play roleplaying games to begin with. All rules requiring it exist to outline that this is part of the game, just like rules of soccer outline that a player has to touch the ball with their feet. Secondly, you are judging his narration by arbitrary standards: what you think are "clever ideas", what "swashbuckler archetype" even is and all your reasons for opting to enforce it are all arbitrary.

Arbitrary isn't the same as subjective. In soccer, the rule that you have to touch the ball with your feet, as well as boundaries of the playing field, are all arbitrary. But once placed, they're objective and easily verifiable by everyone. This is how games - all kinds of games - are built and it is why your game has an arbiter, in shape of a game master.

Point being, what Bob says can be true and still not prove anything other than Bob's own foul attitude.


Honestly, it reminded me a lot of Brian and Dave telling me that they shouldn't have to tell me what they are saying to an NPC, instead they should just "roll diplomacy" and get what they want. They have for years insisted that I am somehow grading them on the eloquence of their speech, and say that isn't fair because they are playing charismatic characters, but if they were charismatic irl they would be out talking to girls instead of playing an RPG. Of course, eloquence never factors into it, I merely need to know what they want, what they are offering, and what approach they are using so that I can said the DC for said diplomacy roll.

That veers into another tired discussion topic. The root problem is much the same, though: these people think that roleplaying is about having the right numbers on their sheet, so being good at grade school math and probability ought to excuse them from doing anything else. In truth, numerical mechanics are just one subset of a large group of things a game can use to model game actions, and using real verbal and social skills of players as part of it is a perfectly legitimate design decision. Put differently, you could just grade eloquence of Brian and Dave when they speak as their characters and make it part of your decision process. As with Bob above, their complaint really only proves their own negative attitude.

[Talakeal]

Stop here for moment. Firstly, the point of fancy narration is to entertain the rest of table. It's a good chunk of why people other than Bob play roleplaying games to begin with. All rules requiring it exist to outline that this is part of the game, just like rules of soccer outline that a player has to touch the ball with their feet. Secondly, you are judging his narration by arbitrary standards: what you think are "clever ideas", what "swashbuckler archetype" even is and all your reasons for opting to enforce it are all arbitrary.

Arbitrary isn't the same as subjective. In soccer, the rule that you have to touch the ball with your feet, as well as boundaries of the playing field, are all arbitrary. But once placed, they're objective and easily verifiable by everyone. This is how games - all kinds of games - are built and it is why your game has an arbiter, in shape of a game master.

Point being, what Bob says can be true and still not prove anything other than Bob's own foul attitude.

I feel like what you are saying is technically true, but kind of runs alongside the point.

The narration doesn't have to be fancy; saying "I swing on the chandelier" or "I slide down the banister" works just as well as three paragraphs of purple prose. Likewise, it doesn't matter if I think its a clever idea or appropriate to the character, the only requirement is that they come up with something that is an acrobatic stunt.

Now, I did feel that saying the exact same five words every round violated the spirit of coming up with a stunt before the attack, which is why Bob feels I am cheating him because it didn't violate the letter of the rules, and so I guess you could say I am technically judging the quality of the stunt, but...

[Vahnavoi]

No "but". You are judging the way Bob's playing and pondering a new ruling based on it. This is not a crime, which means you can just admit to it.

[Slipjig]

That veers into another tired discussion topic. The root problem is much the same, though: these people think that roleplaying is about having the right numbers on their sheet, so being good at grade school math and probability ought to excuse them from doing anything else. In truth, numerical mechanics are just one subset of a large group of things a game can use to model game actions, and using real verbal and social skills of players as part of it is a perfectly legitimate design decision. Put differently, you could just grade eloquence of Brian and Dave when they speak as their characters and make it part of your decision process. As with Bob above, their complaint really only proves their own negative attitude.

I think the players actually have a bit of a point here, though. If they have spent the points to have characters who are skilled at Diplomacy (or Deception), it's a little screwy to negate those skills just because the players get tongue-tied. But it's also pretty goofy to just let a player say, "I use Diplomacy on the NPC".

I think a good middle ground is to have those players describe their conversational approach without actually requiring to speak it in-character, e.g. "I appeal to the guard's piety, suggesting that since I'm a cleric I have a PERFECTLY GOOD reason for [insert PC shenanigans]". You can also raise or lower the DC based on how big the favor or how outlandish the lie is.

[BRC]

I think the players actually have a bit of a point here, though. If they have spent the points to have characters who are skilled at Diplomacy (or Deception), it's a little screwy to negate those skills just because the players get tongue-tied. But it's also pretty goofy to just let a player say, "I use Diplomacy on the NPC".

I think a good middle ground is to have those players describe their conversational approach without actually requiring to speak it in-character, e.g. "I appeal to the guard's piety, suggesting that since I'm a cleric I have a PERFECTLY GOOD reason for [insert PC shenanigans]". You can also raise or lower the DC based on how big the favor or how outlandish the lie is.

The "real world charisma' Question is an old one. The general opinion I subscribe to is that you don't necessarily need to be eloquent (Your character's charisma can handle that), but you do need to explain what argument you are making, you can't just go up and say "I Charisma to make them do what I want". But that's more about clarity for setting DC's and resolving that test than about testing the player's real-world diplomatic ability.


With Stunting, it seems the explicit goal IS to encourage players to be fun and creative with their descriptions.

[Talakeal]

No "but". You are judging the way Bob's playing and pondering a new ruling based on it. This is not a crime, which means you can just admit to it.

Ok.

But IMO using the same stunt every turn has some big "the rules don't say a dog CAN'T play basketball" energy to it. IMO it is clearly against the spirit of the rules even if it doesn't violate the letter. For example, few card games actually have a printed rule saying you can't pick up the deck and look through the cards after it has been shuffled, but no one is going to let a player get away with it.



I think the players actually have a bit of a point here, though. If they have spent the points to have characters who are skilled at Diplomacy (or Deception), it's a little screwy to negate those skills just because the players get tongue-tied. But it's also pretty goofy to just let a player say, "I use Diplomacy on the NPC".

I think a good middle ground is to have those players describe their conversational approach without actually requiring to speak it in-character, e.g. "I appeal to the guard's piety, suggesting that since I'm a cleric I have a PERFECTLY GOOD reason for [insert PC shenanigans]". You can also raise or lower the DC based on how big the favor or how outlandish the lie is.

I know you are responding to Vahnovoi and not me, but for the record, that IS how I play it.


The "real world charisma' Question is an old one. The general opinion I subscribe to is that you don't necessarily need to be eloquent (Your character's charisma can handle that), but you do need to explain what argument you are making, you can't just go up and say "I Charisma to make them do what I want". But that's more about clarity for setting DC's and resolving that test than about testing the player's real-world diplomatic ability.

Right.

The way Brian and Dave want to bypass having to think of an argument by "rolling diplomacy" would be like if a wizard player said it was unreasonable to make him choose spell and targets and instead wanted to be able to resolve encounters by shouting "I use magic" and nothing more.


With Stunting, it seems the explicit goal IS to encourage players to be fun and creative with their descriptions.

Perhaps, which is why I missed the mark IMO.

I was more trying to reward clever tactics not explicitly covered in the rules with a small bonus. Entertaining the rest of the group with a flowery description is fun, but not at all necessary or the main point.

Remove the requirements for needing to come up with an idea first, and it just becomes an OP maneuver.

[JNAProductions]

Ok.

But IMO using the same stunt every turn has some big "the rules don't say a dog CAN'T play basketball" energy to it. IMO it is clearly against the spirit of the rules even if it doesn't violate the letter. For example, few card games actually have a printed rule saying you can't pick up the deck and look through the cards after it has been shuffled, but no one is going to let a player get away with it.

Talakeal, you made the rules. If there's an issue with something that's not supposed to be allowed being allowed, you can change the rules.

This is true even in D&D or M&M or GURPS, where the GM didn't make their own rules. When you're the GM and rules designer, you can just change the rules.

[Talakeal]

Talakeal, you made the rules. If there's an issue with something that's not supposed to be allowed being allowed, you can change the rules.

This is true even in D&D or M&M or GURPS, where the GM didn't make their own rules. When you're the GM and rules designer, you can just change the rules.

Sure... but no player likes having the rules changed on them mid game.


On a broader level, I am not sure it is feasible to actually turn all "spirit of the rules" issues into "letter of the rules" issue. Few if any RPG rulebooks, for example, say you can't use loaded dice, or lie about the results of your dice, or steal the DM's notes while he is in the bathroom, etc. but all of those would be considered cheating at most any table.

[JNAProductions]

Sure... but no player likes having the rules changed on them mid game.


On a broader level, I am not sure it is feasible to actually turn all "spirit of the rules" issues into "letter of the rules" issue. Few if any RPG rulebooks, for example, say you can't use loaded dice, or lie about the results of your dice, or steal the DM's notes while he is in the bathroom, etc. but all of those would be considered cheating at most any table.

This feeds back into "You need a better table."

[Rynjin]

Sure... but no player likes having the rules changed on them mid game.

Frankly, your players don't like anything, and yet they stick around for whatever reason. Who cares what they think, they're just gonna bitch anyway.

[Quertus]

"Boy oh boy, how should I approach this one?" I ask myself, with a big-ol can of vitriol.

So, first things first, what are we talking about? "Stunting" could, fundamentally, be one of two things: descriptive text, or circumstance bonuses (Kudos @Vahnavoi). "Descriptive text" involves the character getting a mechanical bonus in world for actions taken outside the world by the player. "Circumstance bonuses" are quite complex, but boil down to the character getting a bonus for using what is there, or for declaring what is there that could be beneficial (like use of Hero Points in Heroes, IIRC). Note what is not on that list: roleplaying. "Roleplaying" is making decisions for the character, as the character - and both "descriptive text" and at least half of "circumstance bonuses" are antithetical to an in-character thought process, as they explicitly "break the 4th wall".

Which of those 3-4 things are we talking about here? I think the answer is "Descriptive text". So let's go with that assertion moving forward.

So "stunting", then, is, fundamentally, about getting a bonus in-game for something done outside the game. Like getting a cool magic sword for buying the GM a pizza, or a character getting bonuses for the player being the GM's SO. Conventional wisdom says this isn't a good thing. But let's ignore that for the moment, and look at stunting on its own merits.

On the one hand, offering the players a mechanical bonus for offloading the burden of adding descriptive text to the game sounds like a win-win scenario. The game gets more descriptive text, the players become more invested in the fluff, it's wins all around, right?

Yeah, no. In practice, IME, it's terrible. Players - especially min-maxers - add in fluff without regard for the narrative weight of the actions, waxing poetic and wasting time on the most boring of events. Or, put another way, when every attack sounds awesome, none of them are. Far better, IME, to let the narrative-minded players suddenly break in with a "you realize what just happened, right?" recap of events or otherwise highlight the awesome moments as, you know, awesome. Or, put yet another other way, how many times per session do you want to hear how Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, eyes the battlefield, reaches into his spell component pouch, leans to get just the right angle, extends his hands, concentrates... and throws exactly the wrong spell for the scenario, only in even more words, and with flowery descriptive language, using words like "sweat" or "unfocused", or describing the visual, auditory, and/or olfactory nature of the spell's effect? If the answer is more than zero, by all means, let me know the next time we're sitting at a gaming table together, and I'll treat you to an experience in painful amateur wordsmithing you'll likely never forget, no matter how much brain bleach you pour on your grey matter. :smallamused:

So my base response to "stunts" is "don't".

But then we've got Talakeal's group, and Bob. At which point, my answer becomes, "have you considered giving yourself splinters on purpose, or rolling naked on a bed of porcupines? It seems like it would be less painful."

And that's before we get into concepts of "good enough", that's just with "listening to not!Bob saying they bounce off the wall every attack, while Bob just says 'I get the bonus' every attack". I know that, if I had to take over for Talakeal at his table, I'd house-rule that stunt system into the nearest fireplace faster than you could say "+2 bonus", even if I didn't have to adjudicate whether someone's stunt was "good enough" to be worth the bonus or not.

OTOH, acquiring circumstance bonuses from using established facts? Fishing for "unknown facts" ("does there happen to be an open flame nearby?")? Actually investigating in order to learn world facts to use to acquire bonuses (or even auto-succeed)? Yeah, that's my jam. Sign me up.

But stunting via descriptive text? I have seen... not no value, but only negative value in utilizing stunting mechanics (not counting its use in helping to identify "the wrong sorts").

[Talakeal]

"Boy oh boy, how should I approach this one?" I ask myself, with a big-ol can of vitriol.

So, first things first, what are we talking about? "Stunting" could, fundamentally, be one of two things: descriptive text, or circumstance bonuses (Kudos @Vahnavoi). "Descriptive text" involves the character getting a mechanical bonus in world for actions taken outside the world by the player. "Circumstance bonuses" are quite complex, but boil down to the character getting a bonus for using what is there, or for declaring what is there that could be beneficial (like use of Hero Points in Heroes, IIRC). Note what is not on that list: roleplaying. "Roleplaying" is making decisions for the character, as the character - and both "descriptive text" and at least half of "circumstance bonuses" are antithetical to an in-character thought process, as they explicitly "break the 4th wall".

Which of those 3-4 things are we talking about here? I think the answer is "Descriptive text". So let's go with that assertion moving forward.

So "stunting", then, is, fundamentally, about getting a bonus in-game for something done outside the game. Like getting a cool magic sword for buying the GM a pizza, or a character getting bonuses for the player being the GM's SO. Conventional wisdom says this isn't a good thing. But let's ignore that for the moment, and look at stunting on its own merits.

On the one hand, offering the players a mechanical bonus for offloading the burden of adding descriptive text to the game sounds like a win-win scenario. The game gets more descriptive text, the players become more invested in the fluff, it's wins all around, right?

Yeah, no. In practice, IME, it's terrible. Players - especially min-maxers - add in fluff without regard for the narrative weight of the actions, waxing poetic and wasting time on the most boring of events. Or, put another way, when every attack sounds awesome, none of them are. Far better, IME, to let the narrative-minded players suddenly break in with a "you realize what just happened, right?" recap of events or otherwise highlight the awesome moments as, you know, awesome. Or, put yet another other way, how many times per session do you want to hear how Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, eyes the battlefield, reaches into his spell component pouch, leans to get just the right angle, extends his hands, concentrates... and throws exactly the wrong spell for the scenario, only in even more words, and with flowery descriptive language, using words like "sweat" or "unfocused", or describing the visual, auditory, and/or olfactory nature of the spell's effect? If the answer is more than zero, by all means, let me know the next time we're sitting at a gaming table together, and I'll treat you to an experience in painful amateur wordsmithing you'll likely never forget, no matter how much brain bleach you pour on your grey matter. :smallamused:

So my base response to "stunts" is "don't".

But then we've got Talakeal's group, and Bob. At which point, my answer becomes, "have you considered giving yourself splinters on purpose, or rolling naked on a bed of porcupines? It seems like it would be less painful."

And that's before we get into concepts of "good enough", that's just with "listening to not!Bob saying they bounce off the wall every attack, while Bob just says 'I get the bonus' every attack". I know that, if I had to take over for Talakeal at his table, I'd house-rule that stunt system into the nearest fireplace faster than you could say "+2 bonus", even if I didn't have to adjudicate whether someone's stunt was "good enough" to be worth the bonus or not.

OTOH, acquiring circumstance bonuses from using established facts? Fishing for "unknown facts" ("does there happen to be an open flame nearby?")? Actually investigating in order to learn world facts to use to acquire bonuses (or even auto-succeed)? Yeah, that's my jam. Sign me up.

But stunting via descriptive text? I have seen... not no value, but only negative value in utilizing stunting mechanics (not counting its use in helping to identify "the wrong sorts").

Great post!


OTOH, acquiring circumstance bonuses from using established facts? Fishing for "unknown facts" ("does there happen to be an open flame nearby?")? Actually investigating in order to learn world facts to use to acquire bonuses (or even auto-succeed)? Yeah, that's my jam. Sign me up.

But stunting via descriptive text? I have seen... not no value, but only negative value in utilizing stunting mechanics (not counting its use in helping to identify "the wrong sorts").

The former was my intent, the latter is how my players interpreted what I was saying.

[Kish]

Ok.

But IMO using the same stunt every turn has some big "the rules don't say a dog CAN'T play basketball" energy to it. IMO it is clearly against the spirit of the rules even if it doesn't violate the letter. For example, few card games actually have a printed rule saying you can't pick up the deck and look through the cards after it has been shuffled, but no one is going to let a player get away with it.
The only reference I can find to the word "stunt" in Heart of Darkness is in this:


Leaping Attack +2 or -2 Accuracy
Swinging on chandeliers, darting across tabletops, running along
walls, backflipping over opponents, and leaping from enemy to
enemy using their heads like stepping stones; these are all examples
of daring feats that an agile fighter may attempt.
After narrating their stunt, the attacker rolls an acrobatics test
opposed by their subject's dodge; if the attack has more than one
target, test separately against each of them.
If the test is passed, the maneuver provides an accuracy bonus, but on
a failure the character slips up and suffers a penalty instead.
On a critical success, the maneuver's accuracy bonus is doubled, and
on a fumble the attacker falls prone.
Martial Technique:
The character receives a +4 bonus on acrobatics tests made while
using this maneuver.

Is that what you and Bob are arguing over, or are there other combat maneuvers you're referring to here?

[Talakeal]

The only reference I can find to the word "stunt" in Heart of Darkness is in this:



Is that what you and Bob are arguing over, or are there other combat maneuvers you're referring to here?

No that's the one.

Clearly, Bob and I are coming from different directions about the requirement for using it; he is reading it as an every round thing, I am reading it as a sometimes thing for when you have an idea for a cool acrobatic stunt.


I am going to rewrite it to remove the narration requirement and just leave it as optional "fluff", but IMO it is probably going to need a nerf as well as right now it is OP if used every turn in the hands of a suitably nimble character.

[Kish]

If you rewrite it to remove the narration requirement then Bob's reading will become logically unassailable. I would think it would make more sense to rewrite it to say, "This can only be used when the player and GM agree that there is a specific daring feat the situation allows the PC to attempt, which is likely to be a fairly rare occurrence."

[NichG]

I find identifying that as specifically 'leaping attack' to be oddly disjoint with this being a stunt rule. IMO that sounds more like a specific combat maneuver like D&D's Bull Rush rather than a call for open-ended creativity.

Like, what if my stunt is to grab the rug my enemy is standing on and yank? Or shoving a table into their midsection? Or lifting up a rope that's lying on the ground right when they're charging?

[gbaji]

I find identifying that as specifically 'leaping attack' to be oddly disjoint with this being a stunt rule. IMO that sounds more like a specific combat maneuver like D&D's Bull Rush rather than a call for open-ended creativity.

Like, what if my stunt is to grab the rug my enemy is standing on and yank? Or shoving a table into their midsection? Or lifting up a rope that's lying on the ground right when they're charging?

Yeah. I was going to ask something similar. Is this an actual combat maneuver? Or a skill the character has to pay some kind of points to be able to do?

If it's something the character has to pay to do, and then choose to do it as an action, then yes, my expectation is that the character should be able to use it every round if they want. In the same way that a character could use any other special attack skill/ability/whatever.

[Talakeal]

I find identifying that as specifically 'leaping attack' to be oddly disjoint with this being a stunt rule. IMO that sounds more like a specific combat maneuver like D&D's Bull Rush rather than a call for open-ended creativity.

Like, what if my stunt is to grab the rug my enemy is standing on and yank? Or shoving a table into their midsection? Or lifting up a rope that's lying on the ground right when they're charging?

Fair complaint.


Yeah. I was going to ask something similar. Is this an actual combat maneuver? Or a skill the character has to pay some kind of points to be able to do?

If it's something the character has to pay to do, and then choose to do it as an action, then yes, my expectation is that the character should be able to use it every round if they want. In the same way that a character could use any other special attack skill/ability/whatever.

It's something anyone can do.

[Telok]

For a more general 'stunt' I'd be tempted to make it require narration then roll an appropriate skill/ability opposed by the target choice of same skill, perception, or dodge.

For a stronger version I'd require it spend... concentration?... the not-mana & not-destiny resource mostly for crafting, but I seem to recall other combat moves using it. Roll vs number+opponent tier, whatever that general non-trivial target calc was. It'd penalize on crit fail, +2 on failure, double accuracy on success, and then do more on crit success.

For minimal changes remove the narration, halve the bonuses & penalties, and let it be a small surcharge for a overall +1 to hit for dexy characters. Possibly throw in something else for stronk characters so they aren't left behind.

[Vahnavoi]

I think the players actually have a bit of a point here, though. If they have spent the points to have characters who are skilled at Diplomacy (or Deception), it's a little screwy to negate those skills just because the players get tongue-tied. But it's also pretty goofy to just let a player say, "I use Diplomacy on the NPC".

They didn't voice that point, so don't grant them that. But even if they did, there is a dubious premise in there. Namely: that players using their skills means their game investment is negated. The error is in thinking that the investment does nothing when a player is speaking. In actuality, the points are stage directionand rating guidelines for how the game master ought to react to players speaking. Any system where a game master sets a target number based on listening to their players already works this way, more on this below.

Another reason why you shouldn't grant them that point is that they have no trouble arguing for negating or circumventing other rules of play when it is to their own advantage. Indeed, that is the crux of Bob's issue: the rules say Bob needs to narrate his stunts but he doesn't want to, so it is (in Bob's mind) a stupid rule and should be glossed over. But he very much wants that +2 bonus...


I think a good middle ground is to have those players describe their conversational approach without actually requiring to speak it in-character, e.g. "I appeal to the guard's piety, suggesting that since I'm a cleric I have a PERFECTLY GOOD reason for [insert PC shenanigans]". You can also raise or lower the DC based on how big the favor or how outlandish the lie is.

Describing actions in third person versus first person doesn't make as much of a difference as you think it does. Fundamentally: a game master is listening to what the players say and then giving it an arbitrary numerical value (the target number or difficulty class) based on arbitrary criteria (whatever conditions Talakeal thought to write in his game book and scenario notes). The player has to use their own verbal and social skills to understand the situation described to them and to communicate their desire to the game master. There is no other way for it to work in a game based on person-to-person communication. You and Talakeal are simply talking of how easy or hard to make it to the players (by adjusting what and how much they need to tell), but you can't win this argument (with Talakeal's players) by moving the goal posts because the complaint is of there being any goal posts to begin with.

The way forward is to admit that yes, what the players say is being judged, and it is vital that they keep saying things for a game master to judge, because that is part of how characters are modeled. Always has been.

[Jay R]

Leaping Attack +2 or -2 Accuracy
Swinging on chandeliers, darting across tabletops, running along
walls, backflipping over opponents, and leaping from enemy to
enemy using their heads like stepping stones; these are all examples
of daring feats that an agile fighter may attempt.
After narrating their stunt, the attacker rolls an acrobatics test
opposed by their subject's dodge; if the attack has more than one
target, test separately against each of them.
If the test is passed, the maneuver provides an accuracy bonus, but on
a failure the character slips up and suffers a penalty instead.
On a critical success, the maneuver's accuracy bonus is doubled, and
on a fumble the attacker falls prone.
Martial Technique:
The character receives a +4 bonus on acrobatics tests made while
using this maneuver.

If I were running a game with this rule, I would have no problem with somebody using the same stunt each time -- but that stunt would need to be justified each round, just like a Rogue using Sneak Attack needs a flanker each round.

I can see somebody swinging from side to side of the room on a chandelier, stabbing somebody on each side. But swinging on a chandelier implies movement. You cannot swing while staying engaged, and you can't "swing" for 0 feet of movement, to your current location.

Every example in the rule implies movement --
Swinging on chandeliers,
darting across tabletops,
running along walls,
backflipping over opponents, and
leaping from enemy to enemy using their heads like stepping stones.


I would not allow you to stay engaged with an enemy and use it with that enemy. This is a "leaping attack" after all.

Furthermore, you cannot use the chandelier, tabletop, wall, or heads without identifying the chandelier, tabletop, wall, or heads.

Sure -- keep running across the tabletop. In my game last weekend, during a melee in a conference room, a healer stayed under the table, reaching out for the leg of the person she was healing. The table was just as much cover the last time as the first. But she had to identify the table, and state how she was using it, just as much as the Rogue had to identify the weapon he was using, the enemy he was attacking, and why that enemy was vulnerable to a sneak attack. He couldn't even use his Weapon Finesse feat without telling me the weapon was a rapier.

You need to make clear that identifying the maneuver, and why it is effective [I]in this situation this round is a necessary requirement for using the Leaping Attack maneuver, just as identifying that the opponent is flanked or flat-footed is a requirement to use Sneak Attack. Special situation abilities require the player to show that this moment is the special situation.

The new player flips off the wall each time? Fine. But leaving engagement to do that will allow an attack of opportunity on him each time if he moves far enough, and if he doesn't, he gets no advantage for a "leaping attack" that does not include movement.

If the rogue is engaged with an unflanked enemy, he can no longer Sneak Attack. For the same reason, if he stays engaged with an enemy focused on him, he cannot leap into the attack.

Actually, I would seriously consider renaming the maneuver "Leaping Engagement", and specify that it cannot be used against an enemy that you are already engaged with.


I think the players actually have a bit of a point here, though. If they have spent the points to have characters who are skilled at Diplomacy (or Deception), it's a little screwy to negate those skills just because the players get tongue-tied. But it's also pretty goofy to just let a player say, "I use Diplomacy on the NPC".

Right. "I use Diplomacy on the NPC", without telling me which NPC, what you are trying to get her to do, what arguments you are using, or identifying that that NPC can hear you, is like saying "I use a weapon on the raiders," without telling me which raider you are trying to hit, what weapon you are using, any special abilities you are doing, or determining if the raider is in weapon range. Until I know if you're attacking the 8th level Fighter in plate or a first level commoner with no armor, I can't even tell if you hit him.


I think a good middle ground is to have those players describe their conversational approach without actually requiring to speak it in-character, e.g. "I appeal to the guard's piety, suggesting that since I'm a cleric I have a PERFECTLY GOOD reason for [insert PC shenanigans]". You can also raise or lower the DC based on how big the favor or how outlandish the lie is.

Right. Imagine the tongue-tied player:

"I want my bard ... to ... umm ... ask the ... baron to ... errr, well, that is..."
[He gives up and writes down "I want him to send his army out after the orcs. I tell them they are going to attack Stamford tomorrow, and ask him how much tax Stamford pays each year. I remind him that his daughter is near Stamford right now.']

This is no different from saying, I use Sneak attack with my Rapier +2, because the orc is flanked."

The player doesn't have to say what the bard says. But he must communicate to the GM what arguments are in play. How else can the GM set a DC level?

[TaiLiu]

"I *checks notes* think of my dead father and there is a tear in my eye. Crucial character moment achieved. Next round, I think of my dead sister and sing a little song to her memory." Or "It's a crucial character moment to win this fight, since my character is about winning all the time".
I'm imagining a dark brooding character who's constantly talking about their dead family. The rest of the party puts up with it cuz they're the chosen one. :smalltongue:


Stunting in Exalted 2e had three tiers:

A one-die stunt is literally anything more than "I attack the goblin." If they narrate their attack at all, even just saying something like, "Bob swings his sword at the goblin," that's a 1-die stunt.
A two-die stunt incorporates or modifies the environment. The "modifies" part is...very GM-dependent as to what is allowed, but "incorporates" basically means, "did the player take advantage of something the GM described as being present in the scene?" Whether it's the positioning of the other goblins, the ability to use steps for high-ground advantage, kicking dust up off the dry, dingy floor into the monsters' eyes... those are 2-die stunts. (The "modify" thing is best handled as evaluating whether something that the player wants to say has always been there for him to use in his stunt makes sense with the environment as described. Maybe the GM didn't describe the torches on the walls as filling the room with smoke, but if they reasonably would and the player wants to take advantage of the smoke he says is there in his action, that would also be a 2-die stunt.
A three-die stunt is something so amazing and perfect that everyone drops their jaws. If you have any question about it being worth 3 dice, it isn't.

In Exalted, it's expected that most stunts will be 2 dice. Players are, ideally, doing something with the environment in their action every time. That said, a stunt repeated is generally worth one less die each time. Especially in the same scene.
Thanks for the Exalted info. :smallsmile:

[Jay R]

"I *checks notes* think of my dead father and there is a tear in my eye. Crucial character moment achieved. Next round, I think of my dead sister and sing a little song to her memory." Or "It's a crucial character moment to win this fight, since my character is about winning all the time".

Belkar showed us how to do it. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html)

[ciopo]

Stunts to me feels like summon animations in final fantasy games, cool to watch the first couple of times, and furiously mashing skip afterward.

[Bohandas]

I tried to implement this in my Heart of Darkness system fairly simply; you narrate the stunt, you make an agility test, and if you pass, you get +2 on your attack, if you fail you get -2.

However, one of my players, Bob the munchkin, soon realized that if he was playing a character with a high agility, it was mathematically optimal to do this every turn. However, being the min-maxxer he is, he refused to actually narrate the stunts, and just said he was doing a stunt and that it was unfair to ask anything else.

Possibly the issue is that it's too mechanical and too optimizable. In Toon there's rule that's roughly equivalent to stunting rules wherein an action automatically succeeds if it would be funny. Equivalently you could base the success of the stunts in you game entirely on if they're sufficiently unexpected and cool rather than tying them to agility*

Having it non-crunchy like this likely has its own issues, but it's a possibility to consider


*(plus there's a lot of potential stunts that might not be agility based; anything involving dramatically kicking down the door or busting through something is probably strength based, goading someone into attacking you in a specific way that leaves them open to being dodged and counterattacked in the manner of the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies where he plans the fight out beforehand would be mental abilities, a person who's been run through with a long spear adva cing down the length of the spear to get to their attacker would tie to your system's toughness score, etc)

[Jay R]

Several months ago, in a thread about your pseudo-abstract wealth system, I wrote:


You have invented a new sub-game in your system. Since it's new and unusual, it needs to be tested. And the measure of the sub-game is players' enjoyment.

Are your players invested in this new sub-game such that it is increasing their enjoyment of the game?

If so, keep using it, and accept that sometimes people don't like what happens.

If not, the problem isn't the players' attitude. It's a sub-game that they don't want to play and won't invest any resources into trying to win.

There's no point running a system for your players that your players don't want to play.

This is still true, and applies equally to your stunting rules. Narrating the stunt is a subgame that the players don't want to play.

Lots of us like writing new rules -- you, me, and many others. We need to test these rules by whether they improve the game for the players. This rule does not seem to improve the game for your current players.

I also wrote:


You don't have to deal with how you think hypothetical "normal" people should react; you have to deal with how your actual players react, even if it's weird.

It doesn't matter how other people might react to it. This rule is not adding to the enjoyment of Bob and the new rogue. I suggest you drop it.

[HMClark]

I feel the basic idea is good but could do with refinement.

The description part can cause problems as seen, the player flipping of a wall every turn will require spiderman levels of dexterity to use in combat even if the walls are close enough togrther to make it work.

Narration of players' action especially in combat should always be just something to add flavour and excitement not actual bonuses as it can't be applied equally to every player as Bob shows he doesn't have the skill or the will to do it.

Have the player declare that they want to stunt but there would be two levels

Basic stunt that only gives a +1 bonus which can be declared and carried in a single round and can't be repeated the following round unless you roll a maximum, natural 20 etc.

Advanced student which give a +2 bonus, in which you declare the round which basically involves you maneuvering into position to carry out the stunt and performing the next round. There could be an extra bonus if you forego attacks in the maneuvering round. Again the stunt can't be repeated unless a second agility is taken.

[Anymage]

If your system wants stunts, superhuman feats of agility/athleticism are part of what you're going for.

If Tal did want to make a stunting system work, I'd be tempted to lean into that. Give people the ability to do whatever his system's equivalent of taking 15 in D&D would be, give them a certain level of damage resistance while making the move, and promise not to cause the stunt to set them back any more than a more cautious action would. (E.G: If they jump across tall buildings they might catch the far edge by their fingertips or land on a fire escape instead of plummeting to the street below, if they leave a calling card while performing sabotage they won't be spotted or have it lead right back to them, etc.) You won't get Bob to narrate his attacks, but at least players can feel more comfortable with narrative athleticism and might be more inclined to lean into it.

[Segev]

The "real world charisma' Question is an old one. The general opinion I subscribe to is that you don't necessarily need to be eloquent (Your character's charisma can handle that), but you do need to explain what argument you are making, you can't just go up and say "I Charisma to make them do what I want". But that's more about clarity for setting DC's and resolving that test than about testing the player's real-world diplomatic ability.


With Stunting, it seems the explicit goal IS to encourage players to be fun and creative with their descriptions.

You don't need to wax eloquent with your actual speech to get even a 2-die stunt in diplomacy. (Borrowing Exalted terms, here, but please understand this can apply to any system with a similar "rewards for grounding your actions in the game world" mechanic.) The way, for example, D&D 5e spells out its social interaction rules all but requires 2-die stunts to work properly, because to manipulate, cajole, or convince an NPC, you need to be playing off of his Ideal, Bond, or Flaw, or otherwise something that is important to him. The NPC and, in particular, his motivations and drives are part of "the scenery."

"So, the urchin, he's looking for medicine to help his sick big sister, right?" the player might say, confirming some background info. "Okay, I tell him about the garden that the witch has, full of medicinal herbs, and that I just need him to help me steal her key the next time she's out and about and I can pull off this heist I have planned, and I can add 'get herbs to cure big sis' to my to-do list while I'm in there." That would be a two-die stunt in Exalted, and would play off of the urchin's bond in 5e, and would be grounds to roll some sort of social check (in 5e, Charisma(Persuasion) or (Deception), probably). It earns a 2-die stunt in Exalted because it's acknowledging the urchin's Intimacies and the fluff about what drives him, and is using that to leverage it rather than just being "I'm so persuasive that the urchin can't help but want to do me a favor." Again, 2-die stunts in Exalted are not meant to be hard to get, just require some investment in the ongoing narrative sufficient to figure out how to play your actions into that narrative rather than just "roll some dice at the problem."

Alternatively, "The urchin obviously cares about his sister more than himself, given the risks he's taking. I threaten to put his sister out of her misery, myself, if he doesn't stop wheedling and steal that key for me." That'd be a 2-die stunt for Intimidate, vs. the one-die stunt of, "I threaten the urchin with violence if he doesn't do what I want," or the 0-die stunt of "I use Intimidate to make him pick the witch's pocket."

Note how none of these actually requires any speechifying from the player. Each of the example "2-die stunts" describes an approach that uses a lever that is part of the setting - in this case, the urchin's bond to his sister and/or the fact that his sister is sick and he wants to help her. But the dice roll actually handles the question of whether the speech is eloquent, persuasive, or what-have-you. The actual words are not what's being asked for.

Of course, a well-chosen line or few can ALSO be a stunt! But it it isn't required.

Heck, even "backflipping off the wall to attack him!" is missing the point, and probably only a 1-die stunt if repeated too much. Why is that a useful tactic the thirteenth time it come up? D&D 5e - and, from what I understand of it, 4e - had a number of mechanics that involved maneuvering enemies across the battlefield, and often did things like extra damage if they were slammed into walls rather than being able to complete movement. The efforts to manipulate the enemy into position so that the terrain does damage to them would actually qualify as 2-die stunts in Exalted (which uses Theater of the Mind by default and has no suggestions for supporting map-based nor minis-based combat). So, for Bob, if he's describing tactical plays that take advantage of the environment as part of his min/maxing, use the stunt system to reward him for it in lieu of making up extra mechanics, perhaps. Or tell him it qualifies as a stunt and he can give up the normal stunt reward for something appropriate that you adjudicate on the spot. But emphasize that his choice to use the environment as part of his tactical attack is qualifying as a stunt.

Ideally, in my opinion, you want players engaging with combat as if the environment were actually a factor in it. They don't need to describe something flashy to do that; they just need to have the environment as part of their idea of what constitutes good tactics and be actively using it. Pulling tapestries down to provide a visual distraction so they can hide, darting in and out of the foliage to strike from unexpected angles and not be where the enemy thought they were, backing up the stairs as they fight in order to maintain the high ground, specifically lunging at the legs of the opponent ON the high ground to try to get him to trip and fall down or force him to dance a bit while you maneuver into a better position, even kicking dust into someone's face to fluff your Disengage action (in 5e)... all of those are 2-die stunts. None of them require flowery or "epic" descriptions. The point is simply to reward/encourage use of the environment as part of the fight. To ground your actions in the setting.

Heck, if they're fighting a pirate with an eye patch and a peg leg, trying to come at him from his blind side would be a 2-die stunt, at least once! And any new effort to get to his blind side would probably be at least one-die, while using any aspect of the environment (including his peg leg or somesuch) to enable getting to his blind side would be another 2-die stunt. (And note, "at least" once. It might work several times, as long as it's not becoming rote and it's clear he's still taking the environment into account.)

[Lord Torath]

The former was my intent, the latter is how my players interpreted what I was saying.Obviously, this calls for clarifying text added to the rule to remove the confusion/misinterpretation.


If I were running a game with this rule, I would have no problem with somebody using the same stunt each time -- but that stunt would need to be justified each round, just like a Rogue using Sneak Attack needs a flanker each round.

I can see somebody swinging from side to side of the room on a chandelier, stabbing somebody on each side. But swinging on a chandelier implies movement. You cannot swing while staying engaged, and you can't "swing" for 0 feet of movement, to your current location.

Every example in the rule implies movement --
Swinging on chandeliers,
darting across tabletops,
running along walls,
backflipping over opponents, and
leaping from enemy to enemy using their heads like stepping stones.


I would not allow you to stay engaged with an enemy and use it with that enemy. This is a "leaping attack" after all.

Furthermore, you cannot use the chandelier, tabletop, wall, or heads without identifying the chandelier, tabletop, wall, or heads.

Sure -- keep running across the tabletop. In my game last weekend, during a melee in a conference room, a healer stayed under the table, reaching out for the leg of the person she was healing. The table was just as much cover the last time as the first. But she had to identify the table, and state how she was using it, just as much as the Rogue had to identify the weapon he was using, the enemy he was attacking, and why that enemy was vulnerable to a sneak attack. He couldn't even use his Weapon Finesse feat without telling me the weapon was a rapier.

You need to make clear that identifying the maneuver, and why it is effective [I]in this situation this round is a necessary requirement for using the Leaping Attack maneuver, just as identifying that the opponent is flanked or flat-footed is a requirement to use Sneak Attack. Special situation abilities require the player to show that this moment is the special situation.

The new player flips off the wall each time? Fine. But leaving engagement to do that will allow an attack of opportunity on him each time if he moves far enough, and if he doesn't, he gets no advantage for a "leaping attack" that does not include movement.

If the rogue is engaged with an unflanked enemy, he can no longer Sneak Attack. For the same reason, if he stays engaged with an enemy focused on him, he cannot leap into the attack.

Actually, I would seriously consider renaming the maneuver "Leaping Engagement", and specify that it cannot be used against an enemy that you are already engaged with.
That last line is key, here. The rule is not working as intended, and so must be re-written to clarify intent and use. The bit about opportunity attacks if you run away from your opponent to bounce off the wall should also apply.

If someone just said "I do a backflip and attack at +2" round after round, the third flip would be interrupted with a well-timed strike, sending the character prone to the ground in an awkward heap. Possibly preceded by an "Are you sure you want to repeat the very same trick move on your opponent that he's seen you use twice already? Just so you know, he is unlikely to fall for it this time." (Note that reasons for asking are given here, not just the uninformative "Are you sure?"). Look what happened when someone tried it on Roy (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html).

Also, see Segev's reply above. Lots of great stuff.

I especially like the bit about specifying exactly how they are interacting with the environment and how it is effective to get the bonus.

[gbaji]

Obviously, this calls for clarifying text added to the rule to remove the confusion/misinterpretation.

I once took a communications class in college (I take a lot of just random stuff for fun). One of the key take aways from it (one of the few things I remember, in fact) is that when there is a miscommunication between source and reciever, regardless of where the fault lies, it's always the responsiblity of the sender to fix the problem. The assumption is that the sender wants to send the message to the reciever, so the burden falls there.

Which is really important when considering rules clarification. No matter how clearly you think you wrote something, if the people reading it are misunderstanding your intent, no matter how much they may be complete idiots, it's still on you to write it in a way that it will be correctly understood. Again, the assumption is that you are writing the rules so that the people reading it will all understand and follow those rules. If that's not happening, the rules need to be rewritten (or you just abandon the attempt to comunicate).

[Talakeal]

I once took a communications class in college (I take a lot of just random stuff for fun). One of the key take aways from it (one of the few things I remember, in fact) is that when there is a miscommunication between source and reciever, regardless of where the fault lies, it's always the responsiblity of the sender to fix the problem. The assumption is that the sender wants to send the message to the reciever, so the burden falls there.

Which is really important when considering rules clarification. No matter how clearly you think you wrote something, if the people reading it are misunderstanding your intent, no matter how much they may be complete idiots, it's still on you to write it in a way that it will be correctly understood. Again, the assumption is that you are writing the rules so that the people reading it will all understand and follow those rules. If that's not happening, the rules need to be rewritten (or you just abandon the attempt to comunicate).

Which runs directly contrary to the first thing they teach you in law school which is that it is impossible to write something which cannot be misinterpreted.

[Cactus]

Which runs directly contrary to the first thing they teach you in law school which is that it is impossible to write something which cannot be misinterpreted.
That doesn't mean one shouldn't try, particularly when an actual misinterpretation has occurred and can be fixed.

[Talakeal]

That doesn't mean one shouldn't try, particularly when an actual misinterpretation has occurred and can be fixed.

Of course not.

But in this case, I really don't think repeating the same stunt over and over again and then claiming that it isn't technically against the rules is a particularly good faith argument.

[Cactus]

I agree. However a rules update that makes it so seems more likely to succeed than any attempt to make your group reconsider their arguments.

It could also be argued that any action you don't want to occur that isn't technically against the rules is a loophole. Playtesting will expose loopholes and I assume you want to close them.

[Quertus]

Of course not.

But in this case, I really don't think repeating the same stunt over and over again and then claiming that it isn't technically against the rules is a particularly good faith argument.

Normally? Perhaps not. For a tester? Give Bob a raise.

Bob is (arguably) doing his job as a tester, showing you areas where your system can be improved. Granted, he is, if we take your reports at face value, doing so in a somewhat suboptimal way. Still, you should remember that Bob isn't just a player, he's a play tester. And that makes a big difference in how you should interpret his feedback in that regard.

Still, I suspect Bob is as unsuited (if differently unsuited) to a Stunting system as I am.

Personally? I think the value of "Stunting" should be "Spotlight time", not "mechanics" - and that each player should have a finite (and roughly equal) budget of "spotlight time" to spend / gain.

However

The big benefit of stunting done right is in my patented Session Recap (where spotlight budget doesn't apply - you get as much recap spotlight as you've earned), where other players point out what they found cool during the session. Bob's constant "I flip off the walls"? Not cool, nobody will ever mention it. Me as GM finally saying, "The wall flips you off right back, and reveals itself to be an Earth Elemental"? Priceless. I haven't had a group yet that wouldn't have mentioned that (and/or comments about its ire at the dusty footprint on its forehead) in the session recap.

The easiest and most effective way to teach players to give the game character isn't IMO a stunting system, it's to give your game character, and to set aside a time to have the players talk about what they enjoyed.

Although Bizarro World may be too many decades into the negative of remembering and dredging up all the bad times to really benefit from that.

[Talakeal]

I agree. However a rules update that makes it so seems more likely to succeed than any attempt to make your group reconsider their arguments.

It could also be argued that any action you don't want to occur that isn't technically against the rules is a loophole. Playtesting will expose loopholes and I assume you want to close them.

As I think I said upthread, you got to draw the line somewhere. I don't think I need to put down that you can't use loaded dice or read the DM's notes while he is in the bathroom.

[icefractal]

Of course not.

But in this case, I really don't think repeating the same stunt over and over again and then claiming that it isn't technically against the rules is a particularly good faith argument.Well ... IDK. Once you clarified it, that's true, but from just reading the rule alone? The "you need to do something novel" aspect didn't really jump out at me.

And I think that's maybe because of the skill roll? The presence of that roll makes it look like a straightforward mechanical trade-off - get a bonus if you make this secondary roll, but a penalty if you fail it. Doesn't seem like it inherently requires description any more than, say, Power Attack does.


I also think that if your intent is that it only happens once or twice during a battle, that should be an explicit written limit, rather than a "gentlemen's agreement" (which never seem to work out well for your group). My impression is that your players (Bob at least) have negative interest in "self regulating" - they want to push as hard for total victory as they can, and have the system provide the appropriate amount of resistance.

And I get that, because sometimes I'm in that mood too. I want to make choices purely from an IC perspective, and my character (usually) doesn't want a thrilling struggle leading to victory by a narrow margin, maybe after some narratively-appropriate setbacks ... he wants to win as easily and quickly as possible, with as little cost as possible. As a player I don't necessarily want a cakewalk, but I don't want to be making it harder myself, I want the GM/system providing the resistance.

Which is more work for the GM, so I don't demand it. But when that's how they run anyway, all the better. It's how I try to run myself.

[Anymage]

I also think that if your intent is that it only happens once or twice during a battle, that should be an explicit written limit, rather than a "gentlemen's agreement" (which never seem to work out well for your group). My impression is that your players (Bob at least) have negative interest in "self regulating" - they want to push as hard for total victory as they can, and have the system provide the appropriate amount of resistance.

The intent behind stunting systems is for players to give cool descriptions every turn instead of utilitarian attack/damage rolls. That seems to be what Tal is going for. His group apparently wants different things. And frankly, there comes a point when you have to realize that players can only be incentivized so far and you'll either have to work with the group you have or look for new ones who you hope are more to your liking.

[Talakeal]

The intent behind stunting systems is for players to give cool descriptions every turn instead of utilitarian attack/damage rolls. That seems to be what Tal is going for. His group apparently wants different things. And frankly, there comes a point when you have to realize that players can only be incentivized so far and you'll either have to work with the group you have or look for new ones who you hope are more to your liking.

It really isn't.

And I think that is the disconnect, people who like stunting systems want cool descriptions every turn, and think their purpose is to entertain the rest of the group with vivid prose.

I am using it as a way to occasionally give a small bonus for coming up with a cool idea.

[Anymage]

And I think that is the disconnect, people who like stunting systems want cool descriptions every turn, and think their purpose is to entertain the rest of the group with vivid prose.

I am using it as a way to occasionally give a small bonus for coming up with a cool idea.

Stunting is primarily about cool descriptions and panache. Rewarding cool ideas is best done through generous benefits from improvised action rules. Improvised actions should take the place of an attack/action, but should generally have enough upsides (positional, status, and/or raw damage) to make them worth doing. Just be aware that finding a good balance point for improvised actions will take lots of playtesting and regular revision throughout the process.

[Kish]

It really isn't.

And I think that is the disconnect, people who like stunting systems want cool descriptions every turn, and think their purpose is to entertain the rest of the group with vivid prose.

I am using it as a way to occasionally give a small bonus for coming up with a cool idea.
Then, again, you need to rewrite it so it says that, because one thing your current description doesn't come anywhere close to saying is "you should only expect this to happen occasionally."

[Vyke]

It really isn't.

And I think that is the disconnect, people who like stunting systems want cool descriptions every turn, and think their purpose is to entertain the rest of the group with vivid prose.

I am using it as a way to occasionally give a small bonus for coming up with a cool idea.

You need to communicate your intent to the players. Simply and clearly. Not just the rules. "I want to reward creative thinking and awareness of the environment I'm describing. If you come up with a plan that expands that scene in a meaningful and original way then, if I deem it appropriate, may give a small circumstance bonus to the roll. You won't always get it, but I want to encourage thinking outside the box".

But I will say.... do you not do that anyway? Like, if my players have a really good idea and it seems reasonable I just give them a bonus to the roll. I've never written it in my house rules or anything. It's just rewarding desired behaviour.

[Lord Torath]

I am using it as a way to occasionally give a small bonus for coming up with a cool idea.Is there a particular reason you're against rewriting this rule to clarify it?

You've come here to us in the Playground asking for our help. I think everyone here has recommended a re-write of Stunting to clarify how you want it to work. "Bob" has told you his actions aren't technically against this rule, and you agree. But the rule is not being used as you want it to be used.

So what is keeping you from fixing the rule?

Did you want us to agree with you that Bob's misusing the rule? I think we all do. Which is great. You're now living in the village of "I Was Right All Along!" How's that working out for you? Has it improved your gaming sessions? If you want to get to the village of "My Stunting Rule Is Working As Intended," though you're going to need to amend the rule so that it prohibits the behavior you don't want and clarifies the kind of behavior you do want.

None of us here can do that for you. Only you can do that. And until you do, you will never make it to "My Stunting Rule Is Working As Intended."

If you are going to change the rule, you should probably mention it at the end of your next session. "Before you all leave, I have an announcement. As I'm sure you know, the Stunting rule is not being used the way I intended it to be used. To attempt to fix this, I am changing it thusly:"
<insert description of amended rule>
"If this change makes you no longer want to play a Swashbuckler, that's fine. You can bring a different character to the next session."

[Telok]

The intent behind stunting systems is for players to give cool descriptions every turn instead of utilitarian attack/damage rolls.

I have to disagree with this. In my view the purpose behind stunting systems is to incentivise the pcs doing more than just sitting in one spot and trading punches. Many fantasy games don't inherently do anything to make combats anything more than just standing around trading attacks until one side falls down (notable exceptions like ad&d with morale and as always the gm can fix with enough experience + creativity). A game giving a mechanical bonus for exceeding the absolute minimum of "move & roll generic attacks" is trying to reward creativity, roleplay, and treating the game world as more than a static background painting.

The 'cool descriptions' thing is a bonus and may be part of how a stunt system is presented, but its not the goal or reason to have a stunt system.

[tyckspoon]

It really isn't.

And I think that is the disconnect, people who like stunting systems want cool descriptions every turn, and think their purpose is to entertain the rest of the group with vivid prose.

I am using it as a way to occasionally give a small bonus for coming up with a cool idea.


Whenever a character makes an attack, they may decide to utilize one
or more of the following combat maneuvers.
As most maneuvers modify the accuracy of the attack, they must be
declared before rolling to hit, although players may wish to establish a
default routine with the Gamekeeper in case they forget to call it out.
A character may apply any number of maneuvers to a given attack
with cumulative accuracy modifiers. The same maneuver cannot be
applied to the same attack multiple times unless otherwise specified.
Most maneuvers can be performed alongside any form of attack,
although some require the right conditions or certain weapon types.
Unarmed strikes and talons are considered to be weapons for the
purposes of maneuvers.
The martial technique merit can be used to enhance the effects of
various maneuvers, as described below.

I think part of the problem you are encountering here is that you don't actually have a 'Stunt' system or rule - you have a Combat Maneuver. Combat Maneuvers are apparently just supposed to be Things You Can Do, and if you're good enough to pay off the accuracy penalties for most of them and still hit you can do them repeatedly and reliably. Leaping Assault, as you have explained it, is something you don't actually intend to work like every other Combat Maneuver - you want it to have usage requirements that you have not actually put in your rules text (you would likely be having a similar thread about Cheap Shot if you had not already marked that one with 'this will only work once per combat', for the same reason - it's an easy Accuracy bonus that you can just declare you are using.) ... basically your game system is in fact telling Bob that Leaping Assault should work the way he wants to use it. It's a Combat Maneuver, he built a character that can reliably meet the mechanical requirements to use it, he should get to use it.

So 'fixing' your issue either requires adding text to Leaping Assault to actually make it have the restrictions and use-case that you want, or possibly removing it as a Combat Maneuver and making it part of a larger and more formalized Stunting or improvised action rule, where the current Leaping Assault would just be an example of 'things you can do that will earn you a one-off bonus on the action.'

[gbaji]

And I guess the other question to ask here: Is the game system itself somewhat "balanced" around the assumption that PCs are going to be using these combat manuevers as part of their normal combat actions?

This comes back to something I pointed out earlier. If these moves are part of the normal game system (written in the rules, with listed plusses and minuses, difficulty to do, etc), then they aren't really "stunts". They're just part of the normal rules. You have to somewhat expect that the players are going to use them exactly as often as the game conditions allow. If my game rules allow for the same odds of attack if I use weaponA, which does X damage and weaponB, which does X+Y damage (for asssumed positive values of Y), and I don't actually provide any real, in game, mechanical reason not to use weaponB instead of weaponA, I can't then be confused or bothered if my players always use weaponB instead of weaponA. "I'm going to use <less effective weapon/skill/whatever> because I feel like I've used the <more effective version> enough so far this battle", is not a statement I've ever heard a player utter. Not without some tangible reason/benefit for the decision (I play in a skill based game, so it's totally possible for folks to choose to use a less effective weapon in a battle they are winning, just to get a skill check with it, for example).

But yeah. If there's no reason for Bob not to use this ability every round, he's going to use it every round. Why think otherwise? Worse, if the encounters Bob and the party face are even somewhat balanced with the idea that these abilities exist and can be used, then he's going to feel that if he doesn't do so, he's letting his team down or something (or is personally gimped maybe).

[Talakeal]

Is there a particular reason you're against rewriting this rule to clarify it?

You've come here to us in the Playground asking for our help. I think everyone here has recommended a re-write of Stunting to clarify how you want it to work. "Bob" has told you his actions aren't technically against this rule, and you agree. But the rule is not being used as you want it to be used.

So what is keeping you from fixing the rule?

Did you want us to agree with you that Bob's misusing the rule? I think we all do. Which is great. You're now living in the village of "I Was Right All Along!" How's that working out for you? Has it improved your gaming sessions? If you want to get to the village of "My Stunting Rule Is Working As Intended," though you're going to need to amend the rule so that it prohibits the behavior you don't want and clarifies the kind of behavior you do want.

None of us here can do that for you. Only you can do that. And until you do, you will never make it to "My Stunting Rule Is Working As Intended."

If you are going to change the rule, you should probably mention it at the end of your next session. "Before you all leave, I have an announcement. As I'm sure you know, the Stunting rule is not being used the way I intended it to be used. To attempt to fix this, I am changing it thusly:"
<insert description of amended rule>
"If this change makes you no longer want to play a Swashbuckler, that's fine. You can bring a different character to the next session."

I already rewrote the rule and removed any reference to narration.

However, now I think the maneuver is OP if you can just spam it every round, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense for what it represents in the fiction, so I am probably going to have to think of a way to nerf it in the future.

I guess the only think that rankles me is Bob acting like the victim and saying I cheated him because I told him that repeating the same description because it is against the spirit of the rules even if it doesn't violate the letter of the rules; and I find an idea that the rule book needs tons of extra text attempting the (imo impossible) task of codifying every possible case where an activity could violate the spirit of the rules without technically violating the letter.


I think part of the problem you are encountering here is that you don't actually have a 'Stunt' system or rule - you have a Combat Maneuver. Combat Maneuvers are apparently just supposed to be Things You Can Do, and if you're good enough to pay off the accuracy penalties for most of them and still hit you can do them repeatedly and reliably. Leaping Assault, as you have explained it, is something you don't actually intend to work like every other Combat Maneuver - you want it to have usage requirements that you have not actually put in your rules text (you would likely be having a similar thread about Cheap Shot if you had not already marked that one with 'this will only work once per combat', for the same reason - it's an easy Accuracy bonus that you can just declare you are using.) ... basically your game system is in fact telling Bob that Leaping Assault should work the way he wants to use it. It's a Combat Maneuver, he built a character that can reliably meet the mechanical requirements to use it, he should get to use it.

So 'fixing' your issue either requires adding text to Leaping Assault to actually make it have the restrictions and use-case that you want, or possibly removing it as a Combat Maneuver and making it part of a larger and more formalized Stunting or improvised action rule, where the current Leaping Assault would just be an example of 'things you can do that will earn you a one-off bonus on the action.'

Most of the maneuvers that give a bonus to accuracy are conditional; aim can't be used if you moved, ambush can't be used if you are observed, cheap-shot can only be used once per fight, etc.

The idea was that this move was conditional in that you could only use it when there was some acrobatic stunt that you could pull off using the environment. But I guess this is to "fluffy" to work when put up against a min-maxxer.


And I guess the other question to ask here: Is the game system itself somewhat "balanced" around the assumption that PCs are going to be using these combat manuevers as part of their normal combat actions?

This comes back to something I pointed out earlier. If these moves are part of the normal game system (written in the rules, with listed plusses and minuses, difficulty to do, etc), then they aren't really "stunts". They're just part of the normal rules. You have to somewhat expect that the players are going to use them exactly as often as the game conditions allow. If my game rules allow for the same odds of attack if I use weaponA, which does X damage and weaponB, which does X+Y damage (for asssumed positive values of Y), and I don't actually provide any real, in game, mechanical reason not to use weaponB instead of weaponA, I can't then be confused or bothered if my players always use weaponB instead of weaponA. "I'm going to use <less effective weapon/skill/whatever> because I feel like I've used the <more effective version> enough so far this battle", is not a statement I've ever heard a player utter. Not without some tangible reason/benefit for the decision (I play in a skill based game, so it's totally possible for folks to choose to use a less effective weapon in a battle they are winning, just to get a skill check with it, for example).

But yeah. If there's no reason for Bob not to use this ability every round, he's going to use it every round. Why think otherwise? Worse, if the encounters Bob and the party face are even somewhat balanced with the idea that these abilities exist and can be used, then he's going to feel that if he doesn't do so, he's letting his team down or something (or is personally gimped maybe).

No, the game isn't balanced around its use.

[Kish]

I already rewrote the rule and removed any reference to narration.

However, now I think the maneuver is OP if you can just spam it every round, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense for what it represents in the fiction, so I am probably going to have to think of a way to nerf it in the future.

Again--why did you change the part you didn't want to change and not change the part you do want to change? What exactly is stopping you from codifying "this only works when you see a special opportunity, and shouldn't come up more than once in multiple combats"?


I guess the only think that rankles me is Bob acting like the victim and saying I cheated him because I told him that repeating the same description because it is against the spirit of the rules even if it doesn't violate the letter of the rules; and I find an idea that the rule book needs tons of extra text attempting the (imo impossible) task of codifying every possible case where an activity could violate the spirit of the rules without technically violating the letter.

As far as I can tell, what you're saying is that you're so offended by the idea that anyone could not read what was clearly written on the lines between the ones that had the actual text, that it would be letting Bob win to actually write the rules he should have known were there.

[Talakeal]

Again--why did you change the part you didn't want to change and not change the part you do want to change? What exactly is stopping you from codifying "this only works when you see a special opportunity, and shouldn't come up more than once in multiple combats"?

Because the general consensus on this thread seems to be that stunting rules ARE about regailing your fellow players with entertaining speeches, and that such systems will never survive contact with a min-maxxer who isn't into that sort of play.


As far as I can tell, what you're saying is that you're so offended by the idea that anyone could not read what was clearly written on the lines between the ones that had the actual text, that it would be letting Bob win to actually write the rules he should have known were there.

I am saying I am not going to write a giant unwieldy tome that tries to codify the spirit of the rules, and it is annoying that people would expect me to do so, either on the forums or at my table, or think that it is somehow cheating for the GM to ask the players to adhere to the spirit of the rules when the letter in silent.

[Beelzebub1111]

This story reminds me of something my GM warned me about when he first started playing Rifts. One player in his group tended to abuse the "10xp for every completed skill check in a session" rule. every round of every combat he would use backflips to move around with the acrobatics skill. and check off each successful backflip for the 10xp. The gm quickly implemented a rule that the skill check has to accomplish something.


This is the same truth that can be applied to stunting to avoid that minmaxing. The stunt still has to reasonably help with the action you are trying to perform. Like Sonic the Hedgehog grinding down a banister to kick somebody in the face is a situational circumstance where the acrobatics would reasonably improve your outcome over simply running down the stairs and hitting your target (By increasing your speed and not losing momentum). Whereas kick flipping off the wall doesn't actually help you hit anyone with a sword and in fact may make things worse (Turning your back to your opponent, going off guard, leaving yourself wide open, etc)


You can have stunting rules in the game, and it's a great shorthand for the cumulative bonuses and penalties for doing specific stunts like in the interlock system. However I highly recommend adding examples of objective measures of what does and does not qualify as a stunt.

Another thing to remind your GMs is to make environments for scenes that enable stunts. Have fights on top of moving stage coaches or opulent ballrooms with guests, dancers, staff, bands and waiters. have changes in elivation, cover, tables, stairs. Don't always leave it up to your players to ask if there is a chandelier that they can swing from. Build your encounters like you're directing for Errol Flynn.

[Satinavian]

Because the general consensus on this thread seems to be that stunting rules ARE about regailing your fellow players with entertaining speeches, and that such systems will never survive contact with a min-maxxer who isn't into that sort of play.True.

But if you can't make the rule do what you want, there is no reason to keep the rule. It is not as if a system becomes better just by having more rules.

[Kish]

Because the general consensus on this thread seems to be that stunting rules ARE about regailing your fellow players with entertaining speeches, and that such systems will never survive contact with a min-maxxer who isn't into that sort of play.

You don't have a stunting system, man. You have a single combat maneuver. I suggested a way you could rewrite it to actually make the rules for that combat maneuver, not just your posts here complaining about your players' use of that combat maneuver, say what you want which would have taken two sentences, not a "giant unwieldy tome."


I am saying I am not going to write a giant unwieldy tome that tries to codify the spirit of the rules, and it is annoying that people would expect me to do so, either on the forums or at my table, or think that it is somehow cheating for the GM to ask the players to adhere to the spirit of the rules when the letter in silent.
Out of sheer curiosity, is there some number of people who could say "those rules which you wrote don't say, in letter or in spirit, that you can't use this maneuver every round" which would make you consider the possibility that you're wrong here?

[Jay R]

Normally? Perhaps not. For a tester? Give Bob a raise.

Bob is (arguably) doing his job as a tester, showing you areas where your system can be improved. Granted, he is, if we take your reports at face value, doing so in a somewhat suboptimal way. Still, you should remember that Bob isn't just a player, he's a play tester. And that makes a big difference in how you should interpret his feedback in that regard.

Quertus and I disagree about running a game so often that when I think he is right, I need to make a point of saying so.

This is a perfect observation. You are testing rules for eventual publication. If there are holes or misinterpretations, then you should want to fix them, and be grateful when a player discovers one.

This is clearly a problem with your ruleset; two different players have found ways to use the way it's worded to do something it's not supposed to do. Great! You want to find all of those before submitting it for publication. Yes, give Bob a raise -- a real, in-game raise.

I suggest that you give Bob and the new rogue 500 bonus XPs for finding it, thank them for finding a problem in the rules, and announce that every time you find out to have to change a rule, there will be experience point bonuses for the person(s) who found the problem.

I would also ask them for help re-phrasing the rule. Make them your allies and collaborators, not your rivals.

That way, changing the rule they wanted to exploit becomes a positive experience, with praise and bonus XPs and their input.


am saying I am not going to write a giant unwieldy tome that tries to codify the spirit of the rules, and it is annoying that people would expect me to do so, either on the forums or at my table, or think that it is somehow cheating for the GM to ask the players to adhere to the spirit of the rules when the letter in silent.

If you actually intend to publish the rules, or even have them used by a different GM when you aren't present, then you must codify the limits of what you want the players to do. The written rules will (eventually) be the only tool the GM and players have.


I guess the only think that rankles me is Bob acting like the victim and saying I cheated him because I told him that repeating the same description because it is against the spirit of the rules even if it doesn't violate the letter of the rules; and I find an idea that the rule book needs tons of extra text attempting the (imo impossible) task of codifying every possible case where an activity could violate the spirit of the rules without technically violating the letter.

That's right; he feels like a victim who's been cheated. He read the rules in good faith, and all the fluff around the rule, and cannot find any indication of that spirit of the rule. What you don't even mention in the rules will not ever feel like the "spirit" of that rule to readers; it will always feel like a hidden "gotcha" rule.

Give him the praise and thanks and extra XP, and make him feel like he's rewarded for his cleverness, not punished for failing to read your mind.


The idea was that this move was conditional in that you could only use it when there was some acrobatic stunt that you could pull off using the environment. But I guess this is to "fluffy" to work when put up against a min-maxxer.

Let me point out another potential problem with that. I took gymnastics classes at the Y for several years as a kid. I was never very good, but I know a fair amount, and could probably come up with a different, legitimate acrobatic stunt every round it's legal for me to try. If you don't want some players doing that, you need a rule preventing it. Your current approach gives value to my meta-knowledge about acrobatics.

[My proposed rule is that it is a way for a character to move into engagement. You can't do it with somebody you're already engaged with, you have to actually move to another square, and if you disengage from somebody else, you incur an Attack of Opportunity as usual.]

[Telok]

I suggest that you give Bob and the new rogue 500 bonus XPs for finding it, thank them for finding a problem in the rules, and announce that every time you find out to have to change a rule, there will be experience point bonuses for the person(s) who found the problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's about two RL years worth of play xp?

More generally:
It's a modest combat move bonus where you can trivially power game it once you notice that the rules lawyering doesn't align with the intent. Its in a typical mid-range fantasy game. Its not like D&D hasn't had those for 30 years, and this isn't even at the level of jankery that is D&D 5e guidance spell & help action spamming. This is a typical "get feedback & adjust" situation, not "verbally abuse the author and advise rewarding passive aggressive dickery".

[Talakeal]

You don't have a stunting system, man. You have a single combat maneuver.

Correct. And upon listening to my player-tester's thoughts on stunting systems, and feedback from this thread, I don't want a stunting system.

I have rewritten the combat maneuver to remove any references to narration, and plan on rewriting it again if it turns out to be as OP as I suspect.


You have a single combat maneuver. I suggested a way you could rewrite it to actually make the rules for that combat maneuver, not just your posts here complaining about your players' use of that combat maneuver, say what you want which would have taken two sentences, not a "giant unwieldy tome."

I can't parse this sentence. Did you leave out some words?


Out of sheer curiosity, is there some number of people who could say "those rules which you wrote don't say, in letter or in spirit, that you can't use this maneuver every round" which would make you consider the possibility that you're wrong here?

The possibility? Just one.

I would strongly consider it if there seemed to be a clear consensus (either among the forum or my play testers) or the forum community, but I am not seeing that either. And, since I am ditching the rule anyway, its not really an issue.

[Crake]

Just make stunting a resource ala action dice. Give players (or the party, or allow players to gift their uses to others if they wish) x uses per session and only award them for good rp descriptions.

You can also take a page out of FATE’s book, and award players extra uses for acting in character when the actions would otherwise produce an unfavourable result, like a paladin turning down a monetary reward from destitute refugees after saving them.

[gatorized]

Seems like an underdeveloped system. Here's an example of things you should be able to do:

Give the target a penalty to all their rolls for a round
Prevent a target from moving
Force a target to drop an item or weapon
Shoving back, tripping, knocking prone
Lure a target to charge at you before dodging out of the way, or making them attack something behind you
Force someone to focus their attention on you, such as by taunts or distractions

All of these involve an opposed roll, just like any other combat action.

[glass]

Some games, for example Exalted, provide bonuses for PCs doing "stunts". Wild and cinematic moves that would look great in a Kung-Fu or Swashbucking movie, even if they aren't terribly realistic like swinging on chandeliers, rolling under the enemy's legs, sliding down bannisters, or jumping from the backs of one enemy to another.I would draw a distinction between "stunt systems" (as in Exalted) and "improvised action systems" as in D&D 4e. There is some overlap, in that they both try to factor in fictional positioning in a more-concrete way, but stunts as I understand the term are mostly player facing. Whereas improvised actions are for players, but there is also an important element of encouraging the GM not to shut down improvised actions with excessive rolls required and/or penalties. They also lack the "performing seal" aspect of stunt systems. Finally, my impression of stunt systems is that they are about adding bonuses to a defined underlying mechanical attack (or whatever) whereas improvised actions are about giving the GM and players support for those area which the mechanics do not specificallt cover.

I have never actually played Exalted, so my impressions of it are mostly based on online discussions (I have read the 1e and 2re core books, but not recently), so my impression may be flawed. Hopefully Exalted fans are not reaching for pitchforks and torches...


Sometimes, they are, underwhelming, for example I often heard about 4E D&D and how it is almost never better to take an improvised action than use one of your at-will powers.A first level character can do 3d8+3 damage with an improvised attack. It's been a while so I might be misremembering, but I seriously doubt many first-level PCs are getting that out of an At Will. That said, I don't recall improvised actions getting that much use, but that might have been because experienced players were trained out of them by prior systems (and newer players took their cues from the experienced players) rather than any inherent quality of the 4e version.


I tried to implement this in my Heart of Darkness system fairly simply; you narrate the stunt, you make an agility test, and if you pass, you get +2 on your attack, if you fail you get -2.This, OTOH, is not a stunt system or an improvised action system, it is simply use of the acrobatics skill with advantages and tradeoffs. IMO, its use should be narrated as much or as little as any other in-combat skill use (which is a matter of table preference).


So is this true? Does anyone have experienced with published games with good stunting rules? Do people generally ignore them, or just take the bonus as an entitlement with no narrative component?Personally I do not like stunting rules as I understand the term, whereas I do think improvised action rules are useful, which is why I made the distinction I did at the top of the post (and the comment about "performing seals"). And I think D&D 4e is not a bad attempt, although it could definitely be improved. Having just reread it, the example in the DMG is particularly bad!

With regard to your specific system, I do think the majority of people will ignore the specific requirement to narrate this particular skill use, and will treat it like any other skill. So "Bob" is not entirely wrong. I suspect he would be more wrong with an actual stunt system, and he would be definitionally completely wrong with an actual improvised action system (since with no description there is nothing for the GM to adjudicate).

[Talakeal]

Seems like an underdeveloped system. Here's an example of things you should be able to do:

Give the target a penalty to all their rolls for a round
Prevent a target from moving
Force a target to drop an item or weapon
Shoving back, tripping, knocking prone
Lure a target to charge at you before dodging out of the way, or making them attack something behind you
Force someone to focus their attention on you, such as by taunts or distractions

All of these involve an opposed roll, just like any other combat action.

Are you saying that these are things you should be able to do with a stunt (acrobatic or otherwise)? Or be able to do with a mechanical combat maneuver?

Because if it's the latter the system already has options for these*, although the first two are tied to other effects.


*Except the forcing someone to attack someone behind you. That's neat in theory, but I don't know how one would actually manage it on either the fiction or the mechanics layer.

[Crake]

*Except the forcing someone to attack someone behind you. That's neat in theory, but I don't know how one would actually manage it on either the fiction or the mechanics layer.

Presumably, the momentum of the attack carries on past you to the person behind you, hence why it was specified for charging/moving attackers. Ranged attacks are even easier to justify.

[Zuras]

Fundamentally, what are you looking for out of a stunting system? Is it for driving engagement or simply to make sure “I hit it with my sword” isn’t an optimal move every turn.

Is a stunting system significantly different from Mighty Deeds in DCC or Martial Exploits in Low Fantasy Gaming? One of the criticisms I’ve gotten about the OSR systems I’ve been playing from 5e players is that actions besides generic attacks tend to be tactically poor choices.

[Crake]

Fundamentally, what are you looking for out of a stunting system? Is it for driving engagement or simply to make sure “I hit it with my sword” isn’t an optimal move every turn.

Is a stunting system significantly different from Mighty Deeds in DCC or Martial Exploits in Low Fantasy Gaming? One of the criticisms I’ve gotten about the OSR systems I’ve been playing from 5e players is that actions besides generic attacks tend to be tactically poor choices.

I think fate handles “stunts” pretty well, because they contribute toward defeating your opponent. Since “damage” is done based on the difference in your rolls, and stunts contribute to your advantages on rolls, you can chain a bunch of stunts to build a series of advantages, and then exploit it in one big attack to defeat your enemy in one decisive action

[Pauly]

One way of dealing with stunting, kind of sort of inspired by the Coman system.

Player A attempts a stunt, with appropriate RP element.
Roll for success
If successful the party gains one metacurrency coin.
The new metacurrency cannot be spent immediately, it goes into the party’s resource pool.
Player B’s turn starts, the new metacurrency coin is available to spend.

Players can’t both gain and spend metacurrency on the same turn.

Metacurrency carries over from scene to scene, although there is a case for limiting how much can be carried over.

The idea is to incentivize the party to do stunts and to encourage/reward cool RP. So if your rogue says ‘I do a backflip against the wall’ for the seventh time in the encounter, the GM can quite reasonably say ‘the enemies are not impressed, and are waiting for it - if successful you gain no metacurrency, but if you fail the enemy will gain bad guy metacurrency”.

[Dasick]

I think stunting is inappropriate for your system for two reasons.

1) Stunts work best in rules light systems as a means to trick players into making their own combat rules so to speak. You have a rules heavy tactical wargame kind of RPG, and you have players who want to play it as such

2) You have a system where players can set up amazing jaw dropping sequences using the rules of the game as is.

There's quite a few regular (turn based, tactical) computer games which I really like because in them I get to come up with all sorts of cool and clever tactical situations that are quite like what you're describing with the swashbuckler/martial artist thing. They allow me to do these things not because I am good with words (although I am good with words), they allow me to do so through a double whammy of lots of creative codified options and balance that encourages me to do so.

You can get a lot more RP mileage out of Bob by having rules for specific environment objects he can use that will grant him more damage and bonuses that he can just from regular stab in the face action. But that would mean adding whole bunch of other combat maneuvers and rules for them. I know you're trying to cover your bases with the rule for all cool situations, but Bob is kinda-sorta right that if its not codified in the rules, then getting circumstantial bonuses is kind of is a game of entertaining you instead of "playing the game", ie, intereacting with a rule system.




Second, he is convinced that the purpose of the rule is to make a player entertain the rest of the table with the quality of his narration, and thinks that I am somehow judging the quality of said narration against some arbitrary standard to get some bonus. This isn't true of course, the idea is to reward players for clever ideas and reinforce the swashbucler character archetypes.

Honestly, it reminded me a lot of Brian and Dave telling me that they shouldn't have to tell me what they are saying to an NPC, instead they should just "roll diplomacy" and get what they want. They have for years insisted that I am somehow grading them on the eloquence of their speech, and say that isn't fair because they are playing charismatic characters, but if they were charismatic irl they would be out talking to girls instead of playing an RPG. Of course, eloquence never factors into it, I merely need to know what they want, what they are offering, and what approach they are using so that I can said the DC for said diplomacy roll.

...

The way Brian and Dave want to bypass having to think of an argument by "rolling diplomacy" would be like if a wizard player said it was unreasonable to make him choose spell and targets and instead wanted to be able to resolve encounters by shouting "I use magic" and nothing more.

Have you tried telling Brian and Dave that entertaining someone with quality narration is like "talking to girls 101" and they're getting free practice? :D

I do see their point though. The "i do diplomacy vs i do magic" distinction makes sense to me. Because ultimately, pnp RPGs combine two sets of distinct activities. On one hand, you have improv acting theatre aspect, the role playing. On the other hand you have a tactical wargame. Diplomacy is first, magic is second. I wouldnt have much of a problem with a player going "ok i come up with a clever plan - ok, roll intelligence and use whatever skills are appropriate" and then giving the player a run down of the plan their character comes up with.

[gatorized]

Are you saying that these are things you should be able to do with a stunt (acrobatic or otherwise)? Or be able to do with a mechanical combat maneuver?

Because if it's the latter the system already has options for these*, although the first two are tied to other effects.


*Except the forcing someone to attack someone behind you. That's neat in theory, but I don't know how one would actually manage it on either the fiction or the mechanics layer.

For example:

Luring an enemy involves having them attack you and then moving out of the way at the last possible instant so they strike what’s behind you. Whenever an enemy targets you with a physical or energy attack, you can declare you are luring them before they make their attack roll. You must use an active defense when luring. If your defense roll exceeds their attack roll by 3 or more, you can spend 1 Resolve to have the attack strike whatever lies directly behind you. You can lure an opponent into attacking someone else (rather than an inanimate object), but you have to forego you next turn to act to do so, and the new target is allowed to make their own defense roll against the attack.