Stunting

[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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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.

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. [In fact, I think I've seen this movie.] 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 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.

Stunting in Exalted 2e had three tiers:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

[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.