The Dresden Files > DFRPG

Problem Stunts

(1/3) > >>

Nudge:
Going through the Stunts list, I noticed that a few just didn't seem worthwhile.  (More "didn't appeal", but that's a personal thing - I'm more focused on Stunts that I saw not being worth the expense to the person that worthwhile.)   I also saw one or two that confused me in certain ways. I'm listing them here so others can point out where I'm wrong, or the authors can tell me how it's already been fixed :)

Overall - Recovery Justification: The "justification for recovery" Stunts seem inconsistent, and some seem like a stunt wouldn't be necessary.  (A concussion is bad, but a good roll of relevant knowledge should allow for recovery without a stunt, for example.  Not to mention that I don't think Empathy really helps recover from social consequence "WENT BONKERS AND DANCED NAKED ON THE DEAN'S DESK")

Overall - Faster: The "does this faster" Stunts are hurt by the fact that I can't find strong guidelines for how long things SHOULD take in most cases.  I'd suspect in short order the GM would mentally start adjusting for the existence of the stunt (unintentionally), removing the benefit.  I don't think this is an error, but I personally would tend to be leery of them for that reason or at the very least adopt an "ask how long, argue if it is high, them remind of stunt" policy.

Athletics - Too Fast to Hit:  It says "gain an additional +1 to the roll when making such a move".  First, Couldn't that be multiple moves?  (Full Defense isn't a block).  Second, it's unclear if the bonus +1 applies only if you are moving zones while using Full Defense.

Contacts - Ear to the Ground: Any reason the Difficulty is reduced instead of getting a +2?  I know it works out the same, but it's a bit odd to be different.

Conviction - Resilient Self-Image: I know this was pegged as being too strong; I don't recall what the fix was.

Conviction - Tower of Faith: Armor for both mental AND social seems a bit strong (an argument can be made that physical is more frequent - I'm willing to hear that argument)

Deceit - Pick-Pocket: Actually, this is fine (I like it!) I just found it odd that it didn't include a page reference like the other sections did (page 126)

Deceit - Stage Magician: Why not say the +1 bonus stacks with the Pick Pocket stunt, making it more clear that it applies to pick pocket attempts even if you don't have the stunt?

Empathy - Counselor: See "Recovery Justification" above.  I'd have a hard time arguing with someone that has a high Empathy that they can't work to help someone with a moderate consequence.  Requiring justification is good - requiring stunts for those is harsh. (but that may just be me).  Wouldn't this be better as a bonus to rolls to provide justification?

Endurance - No Pain, No Gain: Already has been ruled too strong; Don't recall the fix

Fists - Martial Artist: See other thread, but (a) I would've assumed that Fists COULD do assessments on fighters without the Stunt (p115 says it's usually perception or knowledge skills, but this seems perfectly appropriate).  and (b) Why is this a prereq (and the only prereq in the game?)  I don't see a problem with dropping the entire prereq concept given the stunts presented.  If you're keeping this Stunt, I'd revise Assessments (p115) to create a hard line that without stunts, it's perception and knowledge skills ONLY.  (Side note: Guns grants Gun Knowledge(p131), why doesn't Fists grant Brawling knowledge?)

Fists - Lethal Weapon: Weapon:2 seems too strong.  Weapon:1?  Or is it because it's only vs unarmored opponents?

Fists - Step Into the Blow: Someone can sacrifice several actions in stack as written (though they'd be reeling from so many failed defenses, it can happen).  That seems...weird.  Round 1: 4 guys smack the center guy, center guy smacks all of them.  They spend the next 3 rounds running/debating/ordering pizza while he waits for an action.

Might - Wrestler: Already fixed to be +1 to maintain a grapple.  (or break?)

Performance - Pointed Performance: I have the desire now to rewrite Hamlet as a series of DFRPG-FATE conflicts... Nothing wrong with the stunt though.

Presence - Teflon Persona: This is fine, but makes Tower of Faith still look too strong.

Weapons - Riposte: See Fists - Step Into the Blow for discussion of limiting how many actions you can sacrifice.  Why is this successful vs that stunts roll at +1?

Comments/Corrections welcome!

Deadmanwalking:

--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Going through the Stunts list, I noticed that a few just didn't seem worthwhile.  (More "didn't appeal", but that's a personal thing - I'm more focused on Stunts that I saw not being worth the expense to the person that worthwhile.)   I also saw one or two that confused me in certain ways. I'm listing them here so others can point out where I'm wrong, or the authors can tell me how it's already been fixed :)
--- End quote ---

I’ll see what I can do.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Overall - Recovery Justification: The "justification for recovery" Stunts seem inconsistent, and some seem like a stunt wouldn't be necessary.  (A concussion is bad, but a good roll of relevant knowledge should allow for recovery without a stunt, for example.  Not to mention that I don't think Empathy really helps recover from social consequence "WENT BONKERS AND DANCED NAKED ON THE DEAN'S DESK")
--- End quote ---

Uh, both those are more Minor Consequences, not Moderate or Severe. Moderate or Severe are things like a broken leg or “Really Bad Reputation” or “Massive Emotional Trauma”. Shit that definitely take a while and help to get over. And they’re what you need Stunts to help with. Maybe that’s what you’re having trouble with?

And you’re right, Counselor doesn’t always help with Social Consequences depending on the social consequences in question, but social consequences can be emotional things like “Flustered” or “Terrified of Embarrassment” or “Overwhelming Rage at Harry Dresden”. The last two might well be severe enough to require therapy, too.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Overall - Faster: The "does this faster" Stunts are hurt by the fact that I can't find strong guidelines for how long things SHOULD take in most cases.  I'd suspect in short order the GM would mentally start adjusting for the existence of the stunt (unintentionally), removing the benefit.  I don't think this is an error, but I personally would tend to be leery of them for that reason or at the very least adopt an "ask how long, argue if it is high, them remind of stunt" policy.
--- End quote ---

I think I disagree. The GM is more likely to just forget the existence of the speeding things up Stunts (at least in my experience) or ignore them intentionally and just figure out how long the task should logically take.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Athletics - Too Fast to Hit:  It says "gain an additional +1 to the roll when making such a move".  First, Couldn't that be multiple moves?  (Full Defense isn't a block).  Second, it's unclear if the bonus +1 applies only if you are moving zones while using Full Defense.
--- End quote ---

I believe “such a move.” refers to moving one or more zones, and didn’t find the wording confusing. You can move while using Full Defense, and if you do you get an additional +1 to dodge. What’s unclear?


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Contacts - Ear to the Ground: Any reason the Difficulty is reduced instead of getting a +2?  I know it works out the same, but it's a bit odd to be different.
--- End quote ---

Probably aesthetic. But like you say, it’s not really a big deal.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Conviction - Resilient Self-Image: I know this was pegged as being too strong; I don't recall what the fix was.
--- End quote ---

They now only apply vs. torture or similar things.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Conviction - Tower of Faith: Armor for both mental AND social seems a bit strong (an argument can be made that physical is more frequent - I'm willing to hear that argument)
--- End quote ---

Bear in mind the Armor only applies if you have time to pray, so it’s not always usable. That goes a long way towards balancing it.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Deceit - Pick-Pocket: Actually, this is fine (I like it!) I just found it odd that it didn't include a page reference like the other sections did (page 126)
--- End quote ---

Huh. No idea. But again, not too big a deal.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Deceit - Stage Magician: Why not say the +1 bonus stacks with the Pick Pocket stunt, making it more clear that it applies to pick pocket attempts even if you don't have the stunt?
--- End quote ---

I’m betting it’s intentional. Picking pockets isn’t something all stage magicians are either good at or really capable of.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Empathy - Counselor: See "Recovery Justification" above.  I'd have a hard time arguing with someone that has a high Empathy that they can't work to help someone with a moderate consequence.  Requiring justification is good - requiring stunts for those is harsh. (but that may just be me).  Wouldn't this be better as a bonus to rolls to provide justification?
--- End quote ---

Speaking as a Psychology Major (and one planning on going into therapy), no matter how nice and empathetic you may be, or how good at reading people, long-term ongoing psychological problems (which are what Moderate and higher Consequences represent) require a very specific skill set to deal with. It’s not necessarily one that requires formal training, but it’s not one everybody with a high Empathy is gonna have.

Additionally, from a gameplay perspective, there’s the necessary symmetry with being a Medical Doctor and fixing physical consequences.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Endurance - No Pain, No Gain: Already has been ruled too strong; Don't recall the fix
--- End quote ---

It now only provides one consequence instead of two.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Fists - Martial Artist: See other thread, but (a) I would've assumed that Fists COULD do assessments on fighters without the Stunt (p115 says it's usually perception or knowledge skills, but this seems perfectly appropriate).  and (b) Why is this a prereq (and the only prereq in the game?)  I don't see a problem with dropping the entire prereq concept given the stunts presented.  If you're keeping this Stunt, I'd revise Assessments (p115) to create a hard line that without stunts, it's perception and knowledge skills ONLY.  (Side note: Guns grants Gun Knowledge(p131), why doesn't Fists grant Brawling knowledge?)
--- End quote ---

This one I’m not sure I disagree with you completely on, and I’ll leave responses to others.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Fists - Lethal Weapon: Weapon:2 seems too strong.  Weapon:1?  Or is it because it's only vs unarmored opponents?
--- End quote ---

The armor restriction is HUGE, especially considering that any Wizard can have armor via magic AND anything with Inhuman Toughness has natural armor. The stunt’s actually debatably too weak since it deserts you when you need it most (vs. big, tough, opponents).


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Fists - Step Into the Blow: Someone can sacrifice several actions in stack as written (though they'd be reeling from so many failed defenses, it can happen).  That seems...weird.  Round 1: 4 guys smack the center guy, center guy smacks all of them.  They spend the next 3 rounds running/debating/ordering pizza while he waits for an action.
--- End quote ---

I’d rule it can only be used once per round. Still, that should perhaps be made explicit.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Might - Wrestler: Already fixed to be +1 to maintain a grapple.  (or break?)
--- End quote ---

Indeed.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Performance - Pointed Performance: I have the desire now to rewrite Hamlet as a series of DFRPG-FATE conflicts... Nothing wrong with the stunt though.
--- End quote ---

Heh. Yeah, that could be fun.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Presence - Teflon Persona: This is fine, but makes Tower of Faith still look too strong.
--- End quote ---

But it requires no prep-time. It works even if you’re not expecting a social conflict.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Weapons - Riposte: See Fists - Step Into the Blow for discussion of limiting how many actions you can sacrifice.  Why is this successful vs that stunts roll at +1?
--- End quote ---

Because it effectively lets you use your defense as an attack and their attack as a defense for your next action. That’s actually it’s only advantage…and one that wouldn’t work for Step Into the Blow due to the way that stunt works.

Nudge:

--- Quote from: Deadmanwalking on April 25, 2010, 03:54:28 PM ---Uh, both those are more Minor Consequences, not Moderate or Severe.

--- End quote ---


I'm glad I'm not your Dean :)  I was shooting for Moderate in my choices. 


--- Quote ---Shit that definitely take a while and help to get over. And they’re what you need Stunts to help with. Maybe that’s what you’re having trouble with?
--- End quote ---

Yes.  My reasons are three fold:

1) People get over such things in reality without trained help.  Not always, and trained help makes it more likely, but trained help has existed only for a short span of humanity (and arguably has only been helpful for part of a century) and while some people carry trauma they never recover from, most people are shaped by it without it interfering with their daily lives.  Heck, almost all of us have encountered things like "Bitter Divorce" or "Death of a Loved One" that takes more than a scene to recover from and yet we muddle through with only the support of (untrained) friends and family.  Training helps - no argument - but I don't see it as required. 

2) Fun in the game.  The time aspect of consequences provides plenty of incentive to avoid them.  The GM can say "Look, resharpening your knives does NOT count as working on recovery to your bitter grief, you need to do something to start recovery".  Having a group work to ensure that they've got the stunts among them, as un-fun "requirements" so they can avoid having truly long lasting penalties doesn't sound like the right approach.  Require an RP scene, make a roll (or involve a compel), and recovery has either started or it hasn't.  Training can give a bonus to said roll, improving odds that recovery does start.

3) True to material.  (Note: I've only read the first 4 books thus far, still struggling to find an ebook source for my Sony Reader, so if I'm wrong about later books, feel free to correct me).  Harry carries lots of guilt and trauma.  I'm not seeing him have an encounter and then making an appointment with his therapist.  No, one of his friends stops by and starts a scene like "Harry, you need to stop isolating yourself/holding back your emotions/blaming yourself for what happened to (insert name here)/PIssing off the Council".  (Okay, that latter's not due to trauma).  Sometimes it starts him thinking right off, sometimes it takes a scene or two, but he comes around.  I sincerely doubt Harry surrounds himself with allies that all have the necessary stunt.

Basically #2 is my primary driver though.  Consequences require WORK to fix, I get that, I encourage that.  I don't see _requiring_ stunts to start that recovery as fun, I see requiring(encouraging) roleplaying as fun. 

Deadmanwalking:
Hmmm. I think maybe you're thinking about this wrong in a different way from what I thought: The stunts aren't required per se, a good justification is (says so right in the Consequences section).

Having the stunts and helping the person is just automatically a good justification. No bells and whistles required. There's precedent for this idea in the fact that magic can sub in for medical skill, at least theoretically, and the idea of cleaning up your rep to get rid of "Bad Reputation".


I actually think that's the intent they were going for, and perhaps it'll help you to look at it like that.

iago:
Nudge, first, thanks very much for taking the time to go through the list. While I don't agree with every assessment, this sort of thing is definitely a service to us, and it's appreciated.


--- Quote from: Nudge on April 25, 2010, 01:44:51 PM ---Overall - Recovery Justification: The "justification for recovery" Stunts seem inconsistent, and some seem like a stunt wouldn't be necessary.  (A concussion is bad, but a good roll of relevant knowledge should allow for recovery without a stunt, for example.  Not to mention that I don't think Empathy really helps recover from social consequence "WENT BONKERS AND DANCED NAKED ON THE DEAN'S DESK")

--- End quote ---

We're comfortable with the consistency level of things, here. Social consequence justification (with Counselor) is gonna depend on the particulars of the consequence. Or you could make this just about mental consequence recovery and give another stunt, "Public Relations Expert" for the social-consequences-as-public-opinion issues. :)


--- Quote ---Overall - Faster: The "does this faster" Stunts are hurt by the fact that I can't find strong guidelines for how long things SHOULD take in most cases.  I'd suspect in short order the GM would mentally start adjusting for the existence of the stunt (unintentionally), removing the benefit.  I don't think this is an error, but I personally would tend to be leery of them for that reason or at the very least adopt an "ask how long, argue if it is high, them remind of stunt" policy.
--- End quote ---

This is a fair concern, but one that's not likely to get addressed.  How long things will take will vary from game to game, circumstance to circumstance. They represent the player having a shift or two to spend on "making it go faster", which is a core function of a skill roll anyway, so the expectation is that the GM will parse both in the same fashion.


--- Quote ---Athletics - Too Fast to Hit:  It says "gain an additional +1 to the roll when making such a move".  First, Couldn't that be multiple moves?  (Full Defense isn't a block).  Second, it's unclear if the bonus +1 applies only if you are moving zones while using Full Defense.
--- End quote ---

It's the idea that if you're doing a full defense, you can do the supplemental action of "move one zone" for -1 to the roll, only you don't get the -1 to the roll (that's the first effect of the stunt) and you get a +1 to your full defense bonus. It's not multiple moves. :)

Reworded:

Too Fast to Hit: When making a full defense (page 199), gain an additional +1 to the roll (for a total of +3) if you also take a supplemental action to move one zone. You do not take the usual –1 penalty for the supplemental action.


--- Quote ---Contacts - Ear to the Ground: Any reason the Difficulty is reduced instead of getting a +2?  I know it works out the same, but it's a bit odd to be different.
--- End quote ---

Well, the whole difficulty reduction thing is partly on the notion that maybe there's a "doesn't go lower than Mediocre" principle in action. You're right though, you can always state it as a +2 if that's your preference. Remember: when you take a stunt, YOU word it. These are just examples.


--- Quote ---Conviction - Resilient Self-Image: I know this was pegged as being too strong; I don't recall what the fix was.
--- End quote ---

I forget the original version but I think this may have been a case of the benefit remaining but the circumstances of its applicability getting narrowed. Here's the current draft version:

Resilient Self-Image: Your sense of self is strong, enabling you to endure more psychological punishment than most. When facing torture or other extreme interrogation techniques, You may take two additional mild mental consequences (page 203).


--- Quote ---Conviction - Tower of Faith: Armor for both mental AND social seems a bit strong (an argument can be made that physical is more frequent - I'm willing to hear that argument)
--- End quote ---

Deadmanwalking got this right by & large. It's both a more frequent physical thing and a "you have to pray to get this benefit" thing. Since you have to take deliberate specific action to enjoy that benefit, the stunt's a little more broad in its application.


--- Quote ---Deceit - Pick-Pocket: Actually, this is fine (I like it!) I just found it odd that it didn't include a page reference like the other sections did (page 126)
--- End quote ---

Underneath "Deceit" it presently says "Skill & Trappings, page 126" -- if that was missing, it's been put in, and if you're talking about a page reference specifically inside that stunt, it was likely deemed redundant.


--- Quote ---Deceit - Stage Magician: Why not say the +1 bonus stacks with the Pick Pocket stunt, making it more clear that it applies to pick pocket attempts even if you don't have the stunt?
--- End quote ---

I like this suggestion, so I've adopted it.


--- Quote ---Empathy - Counselor: See "Recovery Justification" above.  I'd have a hard time arguing with someone that has a high Empathy that they can't work to help someone with a moderate consequence.  Requiring justification is good - requiring stunts for those is harsh. (but that may just be me).  Wouldn't this be better as a bonus to rolls to provide justification?
--- End quote ---

See commentary above, as well as Deadmanwalking's statement. The idea is that the stunts provide a guaranteed justification; it's baked right in, the way that going to a doctor is more likely to get you a course of treatment that actually works than going to your buddy down the street who maybe took a first aid course once.


--- Quote ---Endurance - No Pain, No Gain: Already has been ruled too strong; Don't recall the fix
--- End quote ---

No Pain, No Gain: You can take a bunch of punishment before it starts to add up. You may take one additional mild physical consequence (page 203).

(This is a rare case of a broadly applicable stunt, but consequences by their nature are expendable, which is where the justification for going broad comes from. But yes, we've cut it down from two milds to one because of that broad application.)


--- Quote ---Fists - Martial Artist: See other thread, but (a) I would've assumed that Fists COULD do assessments on fighters without the Stunt (p115 says it's usually perception or knowledge skills, but this seems perfectly appropriate).  and (b) Why is this a prereq (and the only prereq in the game?)  I don't see a problem with dropping the entire prereq concept given the stunts presented.  If you're keeping this Stunt, I'd revise Assessments (p115) to create a hard line that without stunts, it's perception and knowledge skills ONLY.  (Side note: Guns grants Gun Knowledge(p131), why doesn't Fists grant Brawling knowledge?)
--- End quote ---

Well, Guns doesn't grant a defense roll, right? So there's general precedent for some trappings existing with one skill but not another.

That said, I do think it may make sense to 1) drop the prerequisite business for Martial Arts (but still note the notion of prereqs as a way to justify more potent stunts as a stunt building option) and to give a small bonus, like a +1, on the assessment roll.


--- Quote ---Fists - Lethal Weapon: Weapon:2 seems too strong.  Weapon:1?  Or is it because it's only vs unarmored opponents?
--- End quote ---

I feel that, sans prerequisite, Lethal Weapon is about right: a Weapon:2 effect that you get in a limited circumstance.  That said, I could see broadening it a little by allowing it to apply partially against Armor:1 opponents: "Each point of Armor the opponent has reduces this Weapon value by 1, so this is Weapon:1 vs. Armor:1 and no benefit against targets with Armor:2 or better." So that may get edited in.


--- Quote ---Fists - Step Into the Blow: Someone can sacrifice several actions in stack as written (though they'd be reeling from so many failed defenses, it can happen).  That seems...weird.  Round 1: 4 guys smack the center guy, center guy smacks all of them.  They spend the next 3 rounds running/debating/ordering pizza while he waits for an action.
--- End quote ---

Nope. If you don't have a next-round action to sacrifice, you can't use the ability. I'll make sure that clarification gets in there.


--- Quote ---Might - Wrestler: Already fixed to be +1 to maintain a grapple.  (or break?)
--- End quote ---

Yes.


--- Quote ---Performance - Pointed Performance: I have the desire now to rewrite Hamlet as a series of DFRPG-FATE conflicts... Nothing wrong with the stunt though.
--- End quote ---

Indeed! Hamlet is full of classic social conflict examples.


--- Quote ---Presence - Teflon Persona: This is fine, but makes Tower of Faith still look too strong.
--- End quote ---

You don't have to deliberately activate Teflon Persona, which is the point on which those balance.


--- Quote ---Weapons - Riposte: See Fists - Step Into the Blow for discussion of limiting how many actions you can sacrifice.  Why is this successful vs that stunts roll at +1?

--- End quote ---

Just different flavor. One version (Riposte) means you get the benefit as is achieved via your defense roll; another brings in the potential to improve that result or miss. It's basically a "risk-range" vs. a "take it as it is" thing, which for me at least is a zero sum tweak.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page