D&D (2024) DM's no longer getting crits on PC's

[Bill Zebub]

Suddenly, one PC equipped with Adamantine Armor cried out in indignation and rage

“Yup, my armor works. I’ve never been hit by a crit. In fact, it seems to protect my friends, too.”

 

[SakanaSensei]

I've been using fixed damage and no crits for a while with a caveat.

I have 4 types on enemies typically. A mook who has average HP and average damage, a tough who has max HP and average damage, and an elite who has average HP and max damage, and a boss who has max ho and max damage. It's enough variety so i can throw in enough mixes to keep people on their toes.

I don't do this for all foes, but for mundane ones like orcs it can add enough variety to keep things interesting.

That's a great way to stretch a statblock!

 

[Lanefan]

It's also possible that monsters "crit" their recharge on a wider range of rolls like 12 or 15 to 20 since it's a recharge mechanic. Sure you might not want the big bad dragon to recharge powerful abilities frequently but mook & minion type monsters regularly recharging an ability that gives them some meaningful value at a given niche even while not being especially dangerous is a different story

The drawback here is that while it's easy to track the ability's on-off status for big single monsters, tracking it independently for each of a whole bunch of mooks could quickly become a pain. It's bad enough when a bunch of mooks each have a non-recharging one-shot ability (e.g. they're each carrying a little grenade to throw) and you have to track which ones have used it and which haven't.

And gods forbid they ever give mooks multiple recharging abilities.

 

[tetrasodium]

The drawback here is that while it's easy to track the ability's on-off status for big single monsters, tracking it independently for each of a whole bunch of mooks could quickly become a pain. It's bad enough when a bunch of mooks each have a non-recharging one-shot ability (e.g. they're each carrying a little grenade to throw) and you have to track which ones have used it and which haven't.

And gods forbid they ever give mooks multiple recharging abilities.

It could be, but there are plenty of games that provide the GM with a pool to avoid that problem, some of them* even have a GM pool that any of the GM's monsters & NPCs can draw from. Wotc seems to be enamored with mmo style raidboss phase monsters & more than a few MMO monsters have powers that are triggered by mooks or powers that impact their mooks. It wouldn't matter if the mooks had a whole chapter of recharging abilities for the GM to draw on if those abilities were powered from a pool & the gm just had to track how big or how small their pool is. Having a GM pool any monster can draw from even adds meaning to filler encounters between the front door to the dungeon (or whatever) & the BBEG. It need not be a bookkeeping nightmare if designed well


* IIRC some versions of fate at least.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, as GMs, we are basically relying on the chance of a crit to carry the fear of death for us? Shouldn't we own that possibility instead?

With adversaries less swingy, it means that character death will be less by chance, and more by design. I think that may be a good thing. It effectively gives the GM more control over how deadly their encounters will be.

Don't forget plausible denial.

A game where the only way the heroes ever feel truly threatened is when it is obvious the DM went out of his or her way to put them in harm's way is not a good game.

Many players like, nay absolutely require, the feeling of verisimilitude where you're punished for making stupid enough mistakes by THE GAME, not by the DM.

Meaning it shouldn't require a conscious decision from the DM to exceed all recommendations for danger level just to make combat meaningful.

Where I define "meaningful" as "not a foregone conclusion".

Combats where you're all but assured victory does have its place but should not be the default. You only have so much playing time; let's not waste that on fights you win easily, let's instead focus on combats that present a modicum of interesting challenge.

A game sucks if the DM can't hide behind the rules for purposes of making the PCs retreat or feel the fear of death. At least I don't want the adversarial playing style where I must obviously break the guidelines in order to truly challenge my players (characters).

 

[Bill Zebub]

Don't forget plausible denial.

A game where the only way the heroes ever feel truly threatened is when it is obvious the DM went out of his or her way to put them in harm's way is not a good game.

Many players like, nay absolutely require, the feeling of verisimilitude where you're punished for making stupid enough mistakes by THE GAME, not by the DM.

Meaning it shouldn't require a conscious decision from the DM to exceed all recommendations for danger level just to make combat meaningful.

Where I define "meaningful" as "not a foregone conclusion".

Combats where you're all but assured victory does have its place but should not be the default. You only have so much playing time; let's not waste that on fights you win easily, let's instead focus on combats that present a modicum of interesting challenge.

A game sucks if the DM can't hide behind the rules for purposes of making the PCs retreat or feel the fear of death. At least I don't want the adversarial playing style where I must obviously break the guidelines in order to truly challenge my players (characters).

Are you referring to fudging during combat, or to throwing supposedly “Deadly” encounters at the party?

 

[Umbran]

A game where the only way the heroes ever feel truly threatened is when it is obvious the DM went out of his or her way to put them in harm's way is not a good game.

...for you, perhaps. Not a good game for you.

I have liked games where the only way for a character to die was for the player to choose it (Sentinels Comics RPG, for instance). I have liked games where the only way for a character to die was if the GM specifically chooses it (Fate). And all sorts in between.

So, for you, only certain kinds of games will do. That's okay, but it doesn't generalize to everyone else. But even then....

Combats where you're all but assured victory does have its place but should not be the default. You only have so much playing time; let's not waste that on fights you win easily, let's instead focus on combats that present a modicum of interesting challenge.

Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e! In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.

Ergo, critical hits, in and of themselves, are not what make combat an interesting challenge.

A game sucks if the DM can't hide behind the rules for purposes of making the PCs retreat or feel the fear of death. At least I don't want the adversarial playing style where I must obviously break the guidelines in order to truly challenge my players (characters).

So, the thing you seem to miss... or hyperbolically elide over, at least, is that critical hits are not the only randomness in the game! It is not like by removing critical hits, suddenly challenges become foregone conclusion

Because, dude, we still use dice. Random numbers are still in play. Characters and parties were killed off by bad luck for decades before critical hits became the usual thing. This merely puts a cap on how large an effect one particular die roll by the GM can have.

Beyond that... honestly, if the GM requires the rules as a shield from adversarial positioning, that's an issue of table interpersonal dynamics, not game design. If you cannot make it clear that the table is friends who are interested in good times, not in being adversarial, the rules won't save you.

 

[Reynard]

Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e! In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.

This is a good point. In fact, if we recall how crits worked in 3E, it seems pretty clear they were included to inject some uncertainty back into the game after the power level was increased. they were weaponized by players, for sure, but where they really shined was the crit by the power attacking ogre that could one-stroke eliminate even the toughest (level appropriate) barbarian. TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.

 

[tetrasodium]

...for you, perhaps. Not a good game for you.

I have liked games where the only way for a character to die was for the player to choose it (Sentinels Comics RPG, for instance). I have liked games where the only way for a character to die was if the GM specifically chooses it (Fate). And all sorts in between.

So, for you, only certain kinds of games will do. That's okay, but it doesn't generalize to everyone else. But even then....



Before you go off on this tear, let us remember that critical hits were not a part of core AD&D rules until 3e! In 1e and 2e, you had to dig around in magazines and mimeographed fanzines to find critical hit tables if you wanted to use them.

Ergo, critical hits, in and of themselves, are not what make combat an interesting challenge.



So, the thing you seem to miss... or hyperbolically elide over, at least, is that critical hits are not the only randomness in the game! It is not like by removing critical hits, suddenly challenges become foregone conclusion

Because, dude, we still use dice. Random numbers are still in play. Characters and parties were killed off by bad luck for decades before critical hits became the usual thing. This merely puts a cap on how large an effect one particular die roll by the GM can have.

Beyond that... honestly, if the GM requires the rules as a shield from adversarial positioning, that's an issue of table interpersonal dynamics, not game design. If you cannot make it clear that the table is friends who are interested in good times, not in being adversarial, the rules won't save you.

That's not quite accurate in terms of risk in Fate & there are a few mechanics being skipped over. Yes a character (or monster/npc) who is "taken out" can just simply be executed by their opponent as you say, but that happens after a player has failed to concede and been forced to expend their stress track plus possible consequences. Combat in fate can be a rocket sled death spiral that trivially makes DCC funnels look positively fair because of how long consequences take to clear but a player can attempt to conceed victory to the other side where they negotiate the terms of their loss in exchange for being able to get away. The stress track springs back fast but consequences can quickly make a PC unplayable with broken bones amputations ICU requirements & so on but clearing higher consequences requires doing things in the game while operating under them. That brutal knife edge makes it so concede early & often gets used by both sides to ensure that it's unlikely the gm ever needs to be in a position where "and he kills you" is said without it being due to an inability to come to agreement on a concession that left everyone knowing it was a fight to the death

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a good point. In fact, if we recall how crits worked in 3E, it seems pretty clear they were included to inject some uncertainty back into the game after the power level was increased. they were weaponized by players, for sure, but where they really shined was the crit by the power attacking ogre that could one-stroke eliminate even the toughest (level appropriate) barbarian. TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.

That's true, but I still believe in the principle of CapnZapp's post, for my game. I personally don't find a game fun if the PCs aren't being threatened, whether I'm the DM or not.