ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Sitrein on May 17, 2013, 04:00:22 AM

Title: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Sitrein on May 17, 2013, 04:00:22 AM: Running a game and a player has two stunts that I question. Wanted to get some other opinions.

First stunt:
Use endurance to defend against physical attacks.

Second stunt:
Use presence instead of conviction for determining mental stress boxes.

My issues:
With the first, how do you justify that? That you just eat the damage to be awesome? That's reflected in stress boxes, not defending against it. I can't see the justification on it.
With the second, again there's the issue of justification but also an issue of balance. I like that stunts can move trappings around but I can't really see those specific trappings moving, especially moving the stress box trapping from one skill to another stress box skill.

My question:
What do you guys think? How would you handle running these or would you simply say, "No?"

Edit: He's altered the "presence for mental stress" to "Discipline for mental stress." Still not sure how I feel about it. I can see the justification a bit better but still want outside opinions.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 17, 2013, 04:22:58 AM: I suggest you disallow the first and allow the second.

I used to allow stunts like the first, but I realized over time that they were too good. Now I require restrictions on such stunts. I'll pull a couple of examples off of the list:

Was That Supposed To Hurt?: You are TOUGH. You don't avoid attacks, you just take them right. You may use your Endurance skill to defend against any physical attack that could plausibly strike you without inflicting a significant injury.

Shrug It Off: You don't bother to dodge; you don't need to. When you are attacked in a physical conflict, you may choose to make your defence Mediocre. If you do so, roll your Endurance skill and gain armour against that attack equal to the result. Armour from this stunt stacks with all other forms of armour.

Either of those ought to work for your player.

As for the second, I just don't think it's that powerful. Mental attacks are kind of rare. (Besides, there's a similar stunt in canon.)

When it comes to narrative justifications, I think both are fine. If you're tough enough, then maybe a normal attack just doesn't even matter enough to count as stress. And Discipline makes perfect sense as a mental toughness skill.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: OwleIsohos on May 17, 2013, 04:28:43 AM: I would make the player explain the reasoning and justification behind these stunts, but I can see a reason for both of these switches.

For the first stunt, the character is tough rather than fast. Instead of being able to dodge blows with Athletics, the character knows how to brace oneself for a hit, how to take a punch and keep going. I would allow it, but put the same limitation on it that Tough Stuff has - it only applies versus 'blunt' damage. Unless you're supernaturally tough, you can't just endure a bullet or a stab wound.

Edit: Or use one of Sanctaphrax's suggested stunts. Those are more awesome.

For the second stunt, this is a character whose self-image is determined by their social reputation and confidence. People love a high Presence character, and this character knows it. The character uses that knowledge as a source of strength when taking mental stress. I'd flat out allow this one, with no caveats; just having the stunt says very interesting things about the character.

The character I play in my tabletop game has some very similar stunts to these. "Give Them Pause" allows her to use Presence to defend against physical attacks, but only when the attackers can hear and understand her; obviously, this has to be accompanied by her doing or saying something that could reasonably make her opponent hesitate. "Must Go On" lets her use her Conviction score to determine her capacity for physical stress; she's able to power through physical pain on willpower alone.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Taran on May 17, 2013, 12:49:36 PM: I have a character with the Endurance one, but it's a power, not a stunt, and it has a toughness power as a pre-requisite.

Edit: (yay! 2000th post!)
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Haru on May 17, 2013, 01:20:29 PM: What those guys said.

I often use the endurance for defense thing on large monsters with hulking size and toughness and such, where it just makes more sense for them to soak things up than move around quickly. But stunts should have a limiting factor, that's even stated in the "make your own stunts" section.

Quote from: Taran on May 17, 2013, 12:49:36 PM
Edit: (yay! 2000th post!)
Congratulations :)
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: UmbraLux on May 17, 2013, 03:33:07 PM: I'd suggest negotiating a few changes to both. First, they need some trappings - reasons for this individual being different from everyone else. Shouldn't be too difficult but it is worth getting the player to start thinking along these lines. Once you have, start on the second issue - the limits of the power/stunt. What are the consequences and ramifications?

For example, if you defend with Endurance "just because he's tough" (hopefully he has better justifications) he won't be dodging...ever. Very easy for you to declare he's an immobile target and tag / invoke for a bonus. ;) But whatever the justification, there should be ramifications. That's what keeps it interesting!
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Taran on May 17, 2013, 03:48:40 PM: Yeah... Umbralux makes a good point.

My character has a fairly respectable athletics, though not as good as endurance, just in case I don't want him to be hit by whatever evil attack the GM might devise.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Lavecki121 on May 19, 2013, 05:52:04 PM: Quote from: Sanctaphrax on May 17, 2013, 04:22:58 AM
Was That Supposed To Hurt?: You are TOUGH. You don't avoid attacks, you just take them right. You may use your Endurance skill to defend against any physical attack that could plausibly strike you without inflicting a significant injury.

I like this one. It makes it vary depending on what could feasibly hurt you. Like if I had "Rock Skin". Probably not getting hurt from blades as much as a normal person.

Quote
Shrug It Off: You don't bother to dodge; you don't need to. When you are attacked in a physical conflict, you may choose to make your defence Mediocre. If you do so, roll your Endurance skill and gain armour against that attack equal to the result. Armour from this stunt stacks with all other forms of armour.

This seems overpowered; but then again you are making your defense mediocre so that probably balances it out. Has this one been play tested. I really like it but Im not sure of how powerful it is.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Tedronai on May 20, 2013, 02:36:20 AM: Quote from: Lavecki121 on May 19, 2013, 05:52:04 PM
This seems overpowered; but then again you are making your defense mediocre so that probably balances it out. Has this one been play tested. I really like it but Im not sure of how powerful it is.
That will perform identically to 'footwork-for-endurance' against any attack without a weapon rating, and become progressively worse as the weapon rating of the attack increases.
It gets slightly more complicated (and powerful), however, when combined with blocks (even weak ones), as the two will then stack, whereas 'footwork-for-endurance' would not.

I haven't playtested it, though; that's just from a reading of the mechanics.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 20, 2013, 02:59:57 AM: Quote from: Lavecki121 on May 19, 2013, 05:52:04 PM
This seems overpowered; but then again you are making your defense mediocre so that probably balances it out. Has this one been play tested. I really like it but Im not sure of how powerful it is.

I may or may not have used it in-game...I really don't recall.

Anyway, Tedronai's analysis is correct. I'm confident in the stunt's balance so long as it's not stacked with blocks, but...come to think of it, it could get kind of silly if mixed with a defence item.

Maybe I should edit it so that it doesn't stack with blocks.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Tedronai on May 20, 2013, 03:19:15 AM: If it can't stack with blocks, it probably needs some other boost. Weapon rating is a heck of a lot easier to come by than armour.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 11:31:42 AM: I'd be wary of any stunt that shifts the stress-track measure from one skill to another, particularly a skill that already provides another stress track.

In general, I'm always cautious when a player wants to create something that gives them a significant advantage for a reduced cost, like these stunts would. The Endurance stunt actually breaks the rules of creating new stunts, because the effect you're getting combines the defensive trappings of both Athletics and Fists/Weapons, rather than just a trapping from a single skill.

So instead of Athletics for ranged defence and Fists/Weapons for melee defence, you've got Endurance. Couple that with Endurance's existing trappings and you have one skill covering your ranged defence, melee defence, and physical stress all coming from one skill.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: narphoenix on May 22, 2013, 01:13:54 PM: Quote from: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 11:31:42 AM
I'd be wary of any stunt that shifts the stress-track measure from one skill to another, particularly a skill that already provides another stress track.

(click to show/hide)
Person of Conviction – Use Conviction instead of Presence
for social stress track.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 01:21:17 PM: Yeah, and I'm wary of letting my players take it without having a character that really suits it. I know it fits the rules, but I still prefer to have the player come up with a decent justification for character builds that can do so much with such a limited range of skills.

Still, at least with Conviction (except for those with faith powers or spellcasters), Conviction has a limited use, while Presence is applicable in a wider range of situations.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: narphoenix on May 22, 2013, 01:48:05 PM: Not by much. Generally, the stress track skills (except Hunger) tend to be limited in scope. I think it might have been once or twice I actually explicitly used those skills in a character.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 01:54:40 PM: Fair enough. I've seen Presence used a few times, though.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 22, 2013, 08:33:18 PM: Quote from: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 11:31:42 AM
The Endurance stunt actually breaks the rules of creating new stunts, because the effect you're getting combines the defensive trappings of both Athletics and Fists/Weapons, rather than just a trapping from a single skill.

I agree with the general logic, but I feel I should point out the fact that Athletics's defence trapping also works against melee attacks. Not all trappings are created equal, eh?

Quote from: narphoenix on May 22, 2013, 01:48:05 PM
Generally, the stress track skills (except Hunger) tend to be limited in scope. I think it might have been once or twice I actually explicitly used those skills in a character.

That's not my experience.

I like to throw poisons and extreme environmental conditions at people. Makes Endurance a standard defence skill.

And I've found Presence's Leadership trapping to be pretty handy. Charisma is useful sometimes too.

As for Conviction, it's useful for Powers. Rarely comes up for most mortals, though, I'll give you that.

Quote from: Tedronai on May 20, 2013, 03:19:15 AM
If it can't stack with blocks, it probably needs some other boost. Weapon rating is a heck of a lot easier to come by than armour.

I'd rather be conservative with the power level of a stunt that lets you defend against all attacks with Endurance. Better to make it too weak than to make it too strong.

Quote from: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 01:21:17 PM
Yeah, and I'm wary of letting my players take it without having a character that really suits it. I know it fits the rules, but I still prefer to have the player come up with a decent justification for character builds that can do so much with such a limited range of skills.

All character builds should be justified. Strong ones don't need any extra justification, and weak ones don't get to get away with lame rationales.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 08:37:07 PM: Definitely, all trappings are not created equal. It's worth double-checking each custom stunt choice in light of the character's overall build.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 22, 2013, 08:39:50 PM: Quote from: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 08:37:07 PM
It's worth double-checking each custom stunt choice in light of the character's overall build.

I don't think so. If you've written your stunts correctly, they'll never be broken in any build.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 08:54:11 PM: Even the core stunts and powers can result in an unbalanced build. It's always worth making sure everyone's on the same page and wants the same thing from the game, so you don't end up with one character dominating every physical conflict in a game where the other players want physical conflict to be a dangerous challenge.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 22, 2013, 09:13:07 PM: That's because some canon stunts and powers are badly written. The solution isn't to police individual characters, it's to write better.

Even with well-written Powers you still need to watch out for groups that don't work well together, of course, but that's a separate issue.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: MadAlchemist on May 22, 2013, 11:47:16 PM: In regards to using Endurance for defense, I have some long earned GM tips; It can be remarkably disappointing to have the desired mechanics of a stunt shot down or replaced. Often you are better off adding to the work your player has done. It could be toned down by requiring some form of armor against the attack and limiting it to fists/weaponry attacks. If the player wants, that stunt could be a prerequisite for another stunt, like footwork, for ranged attacks.

For example: Second Skin/Rope A'Dope/Chivalrous Defense ect.
You are adept at using armor to protect yourself, turning killing blows to scratches on steel.
Whenever you are benefiting from an armor rating (or wearing armor if you want to be even more restrictive) you may defend against Attacks with Endurance as if it were Weaponry. Using this stunt against an attack that can bypass your armor rating results an an automatic Terrible defense.

If the player gets cocky drop an npc with an armor piercing stunt or "called shots" to bypass worn armor. If you allow this to work with Toughness, you have a Catch.
Title: Re: Should I allow a player to use these stunts?
Post by: Aminar on May 24, 2013, 01:47:56 AM: Personally I would say go with it. I wouldn't allow the second one without it fitting, but the first. hell, why not. But I D/GM more by rule of cool than anything else. I mean, sure it doesn't fit every character but I can see Hendricks having Endurance for defense. Especially given the fact Stress isn't damage. He's using his bodies bulk and pain tolerance to ignore grazes and near misses without slowing down. Makes sense to me.