Critical Hits - why, and why not?

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[pemerton]

Gygax explicitly speaks for fudging in 1e as well, so that's not a good measure for your analysis.

He talks about fudging rolls for introducing content - eg wandering monster rolls, or some secret door checks. He actively speaks against fudging combat resolution, which he says (DMG p 61) would be contrary to the major precepts of the game.

EDIT:

That looks like a misplaced citation to me.

You're correct - I was citing from memory. It's on page 9, in the discussion of wandering monsters. And also on p 110, as you say.

 

[billd91]

He talks about fudging rolls for introducing content - eg wandering monster rolls, or some secret door checks. He actively speaks against fudging combat resolution, which he says (DMG p 61) would be contrary to the major precepts of the game.

That looks like a misplaced citation to me. On page 61, he speaks against critical hits on that page as well as overly "realistic" mechanics that are endlessly complex. His primary treatment of overruling the dice, when to do so and not to do so, is on page 110. And on that page, he does give the DM the go-ahead to give the player something other than a dice-mandated death if the play has otherwise been pretty good, just unlucky.

 

[pemerton]

That looks like a misplaced citation to me.

You're correct - I was citing from memory. It's on page 9, in the discussion of wandering monsters. And also on p 110, as you say. I've corrected my post.

 

[Ravenheart87]

I like how in RoleMaster there are different degrees of critical results depending on how good your attack was. There aren't exactly critical hits in the same ways as in D&D (ie. natural 20), instead there are side effects for attacks based on the weapon and armor (eg. blunt weapons are more effective against plate than edged weapons). Too bad the system is really complex without tools, the detailed results of an attack roll look so fascinating.

 

[pemerton]

in RoleMaster there are different degrees of critical results depending on how good your attack was.

<snip>

the detailed results of an attack roll look so fascinating.

I GMed RM continually for a bit over 19 years. The crit tables are absolutely central to RM combat: RM combat is not about hit point attrition, but about condition infliction.

After a while many of the results become fairly familiar, but the injunction on the 00 'E' Impact crit (?, going from memory) to "get a mop" still draws a laugh, or at least a wry smile!

 

[Ravenheart87]

I GMed RM continually for a bit over 19 years. The crit tables are absolutely central to RM combat: RM combat is not about hit point attrition, but about condition infliction.

After a while many of the results become fairly familiar, but the injunction on the 00 'E' Impact crit (?, going from memory) to "get a mop" still draws a laugh, or at least a wry smile!

Heh, those are the things why we also like WFRP1e and DCC RPG critical charts. I am planning to run RoleMaster someday by the way. I have yet to find out which ruleset to use and how to make my life easier. I'm pretty sure it's not as slow as horrible as many depict it, but unfortunately most opinions I can find about the game are either by those who never played it and just criticise, or veterans with 20 years of experience that know the charts by heart.

 

[pemerton]

I am planning to run RoleMaster someday by the way. I have yet to find out which ruleset to use and how to make my life easier.

Iron Crown Enterprises - the company that owns RM, and licenses its publication to Guild Companion Publications - is currently running a playtest of a new version of "unified" Rolemaster. You can download the playtest PDFs for free from their website.

As to what RM is like to play - slower than AD&D, not necessarily slower than 4e (which might be praise or criticism, depending on your inclinations!). I have a very soft spot for RM - I didn't run it for all those years because of dislike! - but it does have one deep incoherence: its PC build system encourages characters with loving detail, intricate backstory and aspirations expressed through their skill selections, etc; but its combat system can tend to make those characters rather disposable.

A game that plays somewhat like RM, but is less complex - and is published by the same companies - is HARP (High Adventure Roleplaying).

 

[Ravenheart87]

Iron Crown Enterprises - the company that owns RM, and licenses its publication to Guild Companion Publications - is currently running a playtest of a new version of "unified" Rolemaster. You can download the playtest PDFs for free from their website.

I saw that, and I've seen a few good ideas there, but I'm more interested in RMFRP or RMC at the moment. What bothers me about RMU is while combat and character generation seems more streamlined, the monsters are way too complex for my taste. RM2 and RMFRP seems so nice with only one line stat blocks and short descriptions. Here you have short codes and a bunch of abilities that refer to other sections of the monster book. I hated monster feats in 3e and this seems more unwieldy during play,.

 

[pemerton]

the monsters are way too complex for my taste.

I've only skimmed the creature book, but agree.

But you could use RMU PCs, spells and combats with an old copy of C&T pretty easily, I think. I agree that the one-line stat block for an RM monster (and the short descriptions in the text) are a virtue of the system.