Cleaning Up The Stunt List

[Tedronai]

I don't see much inconsistency in the list.

I certainly do.  In the comparative frequency of whole-skill boosting stunts on this list as compared to the YS list, if nothing else.

The stunts universally have whatever arbitrary restriction makes them narrow enough to be acceptable.

We do not currently have any consistent codified means of determining what is 'narrow enough to be acceptable' that accounts both for whole-skill stunts and for the 'bullet point guidelines'.  Without that, there can be no reasonable assurance against inappropriately broad stunts being created under this precedent, and the power creep that they would create.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think it's possible to protect against people taking bad precedents.

The simple fact is that sometimes it's okay to give +2 a trapping with no condition with no condition and sometimes it isn't. Same goes for conditional whole skill stunts.

People will always write bad stunts. I don't feel as though I can control that. All I can do is write good ones. Or try to, at least.

[Sanctaphrax]

Sorry this is taking so long, everyone. Exams and other projects got in the way.

Please stand by...

[Tedronai]

I don't think it's possible to protect against people taking bad precedents.

The simple fact is that sometimes it's okay to give +2 a trapping with no condition with no condition and sometimes it isn't. Same goes for conditional whole skill stunts.

People will always write bad stunts. I don't feel as though I can control that. All I can do is write good ones. Or try to, at least.

What I'm asking for, here, is the set of rules you use to determine whether a stunt offering +2 to a trapping with no conditions, or +2 to all trappings of a skill with some degree of conditions qualifies as an acceptable stunt, let alone a 'good' one.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think that that's possible. It's all judgement calls and guesswork.

See, a stunt that gives +2 to Athletics defence against all attacks made by people who want to hurt you is valid under the guidelines given in YS.

Meanwhile, a stunt giving +2 to Endurance for Long-Term Action is too powerful according to those same guidelines.

But the first stunt is vastly stronger than the second.

Stunt balance can't really be nailed down with the way the rules stand now.

You just have to look at the stunt and ask yourself, "will this apply unacceptably often?"

[Tedronai]

'against attacks made by people who want to hurt you' is a nearly meaningless restriction.  The only routine circumstance I could envision for that to not apply would be 'friendly fire' from a zone-attack-happy practitioner.

I reject the premise that reasonable guidelines cannot be derived.  Those 'judgement calls and guesswork' need some guiding principles.  Lay them out.  When is a +2 acceptable, when should it be reduced to +1, when should it be increased to +3, and when is it a powerful enough effect to require a FP expenditure?

[Sanctaphrax]

There's really nothing more than what I've said.

A stunt gives +2 to a skill under a certain condition. This condition can be anything as long as it applies less than half the time.

A mild consequence is equivalent to +1, as is a shift of extra speed or penalty negation or anything else along those lines.

A point of armour is equivalent to +2.

A bonus to stress inflicted is equivalent to a bonus to a skill.

An extra trapping for the skill is equivalent to +2.

Benefits can go up for super-narrow conditions or down for broad ones.

Limit skill bonuses to +1 when they can apply to attacks.

Other, weirder, bonuses should be roughly as good as a stunt that gives +2 under a condition.

The truth is that with trappings as unequal as they are and the definition of a meaningful restriction so vague, the above guidelines are about as rigid as it's possible to be.

[Tedronai]

There is plenty of room for clarification, especially as it relates to this:

Benefits can go up for super-narrow conditions or down for broad ones.

in light of this:

A stunt gives +2 to a skill under a certain condition. This condition can be anything as long as it applies less than half the time.

[Sanctaphrax]

Go on, not sure what you're asking here.

[Tedronai]

If a suitably narrow condition to allow a +2 bonus is defined as 'less than 50% of the skill's usage', where is the line drawn for bonuses of other magnitudes?

[Sanctaphrax]

Well, that seems obvious now.

I generally go with something along the following lines:

+1: Not always, but very frequently. Maybe 75% of the time. Basically, there has to be a non-contrived scenario where it won't apply.

+3: Very rarely. Most characters would literally never use this, but some characters could push it up to ~25% of the time.

+4: Seriously, when would you use this? Basically a joke.

[Sanctaphrax]

At long last, I've implemented the planned changes.

If Tedronai (or someone else) wants to critique further, now's the time.

(In case people have forgotten, Tedronai got up to Deceit before I dropped the ball.)

[Tedronai]

Unfortunately, systematic efforts like this one take up a disproportionate amount of my energy, and are often the first to get dropped when I need to prune my relatively frivolous activities.
If things start to get better in the next few days, I'll jump back in where I left off, or wherever the state of the effort is at that time if it's continued by someone else in the meantime.

Of immediate note regarding your benefit scale, +4 is where I'd generally place not-crap versions of 'once/scene, with a FP' stunts, (in addition to a +2 or reroll, at player discretion at time of use, from the FP itself) if the affected trapping is one likely to see use several times a scene in scenes where the stunt would be used (such as with Fists and Killer Blow).
(for trappings likely only to be used once or twice in a scene where it is used at all, I'd scale back the benefit accordingly, as well as, of course, adjusting as appropriate to how that particular trapping compares to the total uses of the skill as a whole)

[Sanctaphrax]

Unfortunately, systematic efforts like this one take up a disproportionate amount of my energy, and are often the first to get dropped when I need to prune my relatively frivolous activities.

Same here. Hence the long wait since the last update.

Letting FP stunts give +4 might be reasonable, though I'd want to test any such stunt. Bonuses of that size make me nervous.

Anyway, I'll let this sit until the next Monday. If nobody says anything between now and then, I'm declaring the project done.

It's not perfect, but it is significantly better than it used to be. And it was already good enough that I wasn't ashamed of it. So ending the project now would not be tragic at all.

[Sanctaphrax]

Alright, next Monday is done.

I hereby declare this project complete.

I'll update the Resources board thread tomorrow.