Critical Hits - why, and why not?

[N'raac]

I've always had a simple critical hit system in my games - on a natural 20 you roll a d10 and on 8-0 your damage gets a multiplier tacked on.

I've also always had fumbles - on a natural 1 you roll a d6 and on 1 you fumble; there's a table to see what you've done to yourself and-or your allies. Bane effects and similar can increase your fumble chance.

The thing that bugs me about a lot of critical, and fumble, systems is their pure randomness. The above demonstrates that. Skill has no bearing - 1 in 120 of your swings will be a fumble, whether you are a commoner or a 20+ level warrior. That warrior will actually fumble more often, since he will get multiple attacks. Shouldn't skill reduce the likelihood of a botch job and enhance the potential for a more devastating hit?

If we have an army on the field, say 600 men to each side, trained warriors, but perhaps still somewhat green, does it "feel" right that 10 of them will drop their weapons or worse, while 18 will strike a critical hit, on just their first swing? Might be OK for the Critical - some hits simply strike more true. A Fumble every 4 minutes (10 rounds to the minute, 3 swings per round) doesn't feel like an expert and experienced warrior to me. It seems more like slapstick.

it has nothing to do with DMs wanting to "channel player behavior" and more to do with the idea that no matter how lucky you are (hit points in all editions being partly defined as luck) there's always a risk.

Actually, it has everything to do with channeling player behaviour, whether the DM set out to do so or failed to realize the impact. Greater risk of combat logically converts to players making greater efforts to minimize combat, or stack the deck in their favour, as few players want to make a new character every hour or two. Greater risk of character loss/shorter character lifespan also logically leads to reduced player investment in the character - why would I spend four hours putting my character together if he's only likely to last a game session or two? I'll just pull out an old character, change his stats and personality a bit, rename him and in we go (or just erase the roman numeral behind his name and replace it with the next one in sequence).

And keep in mind crits don't have to always be auto-kill; it could be as simple as saying that crossbow bolt got you for 18 points damage instead of 6.

This is key, to me. Why can't the results have varying severity and duration? A fumble could mean you stubbed your toe, missed your attack, recovered your footing but are off-balance and suffer a -2 AC penalty until your next round. A Critical could leave a painful wound imposing -1 to 4 on actions using that limb, with the penalty decreasing by one per day as the wound heals. A bad critical might break your wrist, rather than sever your hand it will heal, but it will take considerable time. New healing spells to deal with such wounds, or added benefits of existing spells, could also be used.

Applying "should be's" to casting magic spells is always questionable to me - it's pretty tough to objectively apply realism to magic, as magic is inherently not realistic.

A lot of it comes down to the game feel you want. If combat is very swingy, it's reasonable to expect some players will make every effort to avoid combat. Others will avoid making much investment in characters, and rush into combat hoping to get lucky. If not, change the roman numeral on the character sheet. If you get lucky, maybe some investment in this character, assuming his survival odds are now improved, might be warranted. If players can predict "the crossbows can't kill me", then action movie scenes are more likely. Which is desirable depends on the feel of the game you want, and a lot of that feel is player and character behaviour.

A GM who wants the players to respect those six crossbowmen so he implements critical hits to make it more likely they will. That impacts their attitude to all combat. I'm amazed how often a thread or discussion that starts with "my players never do Genre Behavior XYZ and it makes my game feel off" quickly reveals that, whether due to GM or game system, doing XYZ is disadvantageous. "The Good characters are bloodthirsty and never spare a defeated foe" is one classic example. We then discover the game gives full xp only if the enemy is killed. Discussing the GM's campaign, every foe the players have ever spared comes back to threaten and betray them in the future. Gee, it sure is puzzling why they never spare a defeated foe, isn't it?

 

[Lanefan]

The thing that bugs me about a lot of critical, and fumble, systems is their pure randomness. The above demonstrates that. Skill has no bearing - 1 in 120 of your swings will be a fumble, whether you are a commoner or a 20+ level warrior. That warrior will actually fumble more often, since he will get multiple attacks. Shouldn't skill reduce the likelihood of a botch job and enhance the potential for a more devastating hit?

Perhaps. I've thought about ways of accomplishing this in the past but everything I ever came up with ended up being more complicated than it's worth.

If we have an army on the field, say 600 men to each side, trained warriors, but perhaps still somewhat green, does it "feel" right that 10 of them will drop their weapons or worse, while 18 will strike a critical hit, on just their first swing? Might be OK for the Critical - some hits simply strike more true. A Fumble every 4 minutes (10 rounds to the minute, 3 swings per round) doesn't feel like an expert and experienced warrior to me. It seems more like slapstick.

First off, I use an older-school round length of about 30 seconds. Second off, you're talking about more than just "trained warriors" if they're getting three attacks per round; never mind that in any edition no combat is going to last 120 rounds!*

* - in 30+ years of DMing and playing the longest combat I've ever seen was 38 rounds, and that was an all-defense PC fighting her own clone in melee; I think each required something like a natural 19 to hit the other.

Actually, it has everything to do with channeling player behaviour, whether the DM set out to do so or failed to realize the impact. Greater risk of combat logically converts to players making greater efforts to minimize combat, or stack the deck in their favour, as few players want to make a new character every hour or two. Greater risk of character loss/shorter character lifespan also logically leads to reduced player investment in the character - why would I spend four hours putting my character together if he's only likely to last a game session or two? I'll just pull out an old character, change his stats and personality a bit, rename him and in we go (or just erase the roman numeral behind his name and replace it with the next one in sequence).

Any system where it takes 4 hours to generate a character has bigger problems than I can fix here.

Lanefan

 

[Celebrim]

The system is doing what you think it should do. Others see it differently; and it has nothing to do with DMs wanting to "channel player behavior" and more to do with the idea that no matter how lucky you are (hit points in all editions being partly defined as luck) there's always a risk.

Inevitably, when people complain about the idea that there is no risk, the example for why this is a problem boils down to, "Why are my PC's not doing what the NPC's tell them to do!!!" The justification isn't, "I want my players to unexpectedly die to the arrow fired by a nameless goblin for 60 yards away." The justification is always, "I tried to use my NPC's to force the players to do something, and instead they didn't!"

Fundamentally, if it was just about whether luck ran out, you could have a mechanic like, "Reality Doesn't Work Like a Story: At the end of each session, roll a D20. If a 1 comes up, the players suffers a terrible unexpected tragedy - chokes to death on a chicken bone, struck by lightning, suffers brain aneurism, ran over by distracted teamster, crushed by falling tower, stepped on by migratory mountain giant, etc. - and dies."

There are all sorts of better mechanics than critical hits if the problem is, "The NPC's got the drop on you. Take my cues, dang it; I'm directing here!"

 

[Lanefan]

Inevitably, when people complain about the idea that there is no risk, the example for why this is a problem boils down to, "Why are my PC's not doing what the NPC's tell them to do!!!" The justification isn't, "I want my players to unexpectedly die to the arrow fired by a nameless goblin for 60 yards away." The justification is always, "I tried to use my NPC's to force the players to do something, and instead they didn't!"

I don't really want my players dying from anything, thank you. Their *characters*, on the other hand...

But yes, I have no real problem if the nameless goblin scores a lucky shot and fells a PC any more than if said PC scores a lucky shot and fells a nameless foe against the odds.

Fundamentally, if it was just about whether luck ran out, you could have a mechanic like, "Reality Doesn't Work Like a Story: At the end of each session, roll a D20. If a 1 comes up, the players suffers a terrible unexpected tragedy - chokes to death on a chicken bone, struck by lightning, suffers brain aneurism, ran over by distracted teamster, crushed by falling tower, stepped on by migratory mountain giant, etc. - and dies."

Given the usual risky lifestyle of adventurers these sorts of things should be the least of theiur worries.

There are all sorts of better mechanics than critical hits if the problem is, "The NPC's got the drop on you. Take my queues, dang it; I'm directing here!"

You keep bringing this up, that critical hits represent some sort of DM enforcement of something or other, and to me it's about as relevant as bringing up the comparitive performance of Johnson outboard motors vs. Evinrudes.

Critical hits (and fumbles, on the flip side) don't enforce anything other than to remind all involved that adventuring is a risky business with no guarantees of success and probably should be treated as such. Recognizing and mitigating those risks e.g. avoiding combat where possible is simple common sense, isn't it?

Lanefan

 

[billd91]

You keep bringing this up, that critical hits represent some sort of DM enforcement of something or other, and to me it's about as relevant as bringing up the comparitive performance of Johnson outboard motors vs. Evinrudes.

Critical hits (and fumbles, on the flip side) don't enforce anything other than to remind all involved that adventuring is a risky business with no guarantees of success and probably should be treated as such. Recognizing and mitigating those risks e.g. avoiding combat where possible is simple common sense, isn't it?

Lanefan

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either. It makes the combat system a little more dangerous for the PCs because it's swingier. But that's about it. With that in place, it's no more pulling the PCs strings from the GM's chair than a less swingy system. The players adjust to the system and play accordingly. You might as well condemn D&D for the same issue because, compared to Mutants and Masterminds, the damage is lethal rather than comic book.

 

[N'raac]

Perhaps. I've thought about ways of accomplishing this in the past but everything I ever came up with ended up being more complicated than it's worth.

I think such a system would ideally be BAB-based, with a decision on which modifiers apply. For fumbles, I'd suggest weapon focus/specialization type bonuses should apply (representing skill) while STR bonuses (brute force) should not. Maybe a DEX bonus should always apply. For criticals, the roll to confirm is reasonable. I recall using a system some years back which used a % equal to the number of points you hit or missed by(minimum 1% chance), both on a natural 20 or 1, or on every hit.

There's a continuum again - any critical or fumble system adds a step, so it adds complexity to a system lacking criticals and fumbles.

First off, I use an older-school round length of about 30 seconds. Second off, you're talking about more than just "trained warriors" if they're getting three attacks per round; never mind that in any edition no combat is going to last 120 rounds!*

* - in 30+ years of DMing and playing the longest combat I've ever seen was 38 rounds, and that was an all-defense PC fighting her own clone in melee; I think each required something like a natural 19 to hit the other.

To the first issue, I was simply thinking 11th level 3e warrior class. Different systems will have different numbers of attacks, of course, and different timeframes for rounds.

To the second, I was not envisioning a single combat, but a series of combats totaling the relevant time period. But if you want 120 swings (not rounds - each attack can be a crit or a fumble), it's quite easy - wave upon wave of kobolds charge the 11th level Warrior. In fact, that 11th level warrior surrounded by a swarm of kobolds or goblins in 1e is in trouble, Each kobold/goblin attacks once per round, so 8 attacks, with 1 in 20 rolling a nat 20, and 3 in 10 being critical, is 1 Crit in 67 shots - should be every 8th or 9th round as the horde of kobolds attack the mighty warrior. Maybe no big deal, since multiplying damage of the kobold probably isn't that big a threat.

But the fighter can attack up to 11 creatures of less than 1 HD per round, so he can swing on all eight every round. 1 in 20 rolls is a 1, with a 1 in 6 chance of a fumble, so he will fumble every 15 rounds, on average. So much for our skilled, experienced, trained warrior. Meanwhile, the kobolds, goblins or commoners would have to swing 120 times before they would fumble, so it will almost never happen. Objectively, they each fumble every 120 swings, so they are equal (which is bad enough), but they won't FEEL equal in play - it will feel like the warrior fumbles a lot, especially compared to other characters who have less martial skill.

Any system where it takes 4 hours to generate a character has bigger problems than I can fix here.

Depends on what you do. If you just generate the character, scratch out III and write in IV behind the same name the last three had and carry on, generating a character won't take as long as if you invest some time fleshing out his background, history and personality. But the former isn't a character, just a playing pawn on the game board/battlemat. It's the background, history and personality that make those scribbled numbers a CHARACTER.

But yes, I have no real problem if the nameless goblin scores a lucky shot and fells a PC any more than if said PC scores a lucky shot and fells a nameless foe against the odds.

The system all comes back to impact the characters, though. How many swings will be taken on that one nameless foe in his entire on-stage game appearance? A few get hit with a crit and more rise to take their place. If he's just a nameless goblin, the PC crit was probably utterly meaningless - a normal hit would likely have taken him down. But the PC will be hit with a crit, on average, from every 67th attack against him. That's a lot, over (say) 10 levels. That multiplied damage can also mean the difference between "down, but can be save" and "dead", which is rarely if ever relevant for the PC's opponents.

Similarly, how many attacks will that nameless foe make in his entire in-game existence? PC's will make enough that they will experience numerous fumbles, and start to feel pretty incompetent over time. Like a poster noted upthread, picking up a collection of missing body parts doesn't feel cinematic. I recall one game with Crits and Fumbles where a frustrated player noted "we go out poor, seeking treasure. We come back, have to sell all the treasure and pawn a few of our own possessions to regenerate the losses from crits and fumbles". Not an issue for your "multiply the damage" system, at least, unless your fumbles have more grave consequences.

You keep bringing this up, that critical hits represent some sort of DM enforcement of something or other, and to me it's about as relevant as bringing up the comparitive performance of Johnson outboard motors vs. Evinrudes.

Whether intentional ("When 6 crossbowmen say 'Drop your weapons and put your hands on your hands on your heads', I want those PC's to comply - we need critical hits to put that fear into them") or not ("Critical hits and fumbles make combat more exciting!"), the mechanics of the game influence the approaches taken by the players. Regardless of the reason for their addition, crits and fumbles make combat riskier. Players will play accordingly. Maybe that's good - they are more inclined to parley, use stealth and otherwise work to avoid combat, making the game more than hack and slash the monsters and steal their loot. Maybe it's not - players invest less effort bringing the characters to life because they're unlikely to last more than a few game sessions before falling to some random crit or fumble, no matter how skillfully they are played. But, for good or ill, mechanics change player behaviour.

You note yourself that avoiding combat is common sense, but if the intent is a cinematic, action movie feel, then trepidation about entering combat pulls against, rather than towards, the goal. Kind of like, if you want a real swashbuckler feel, then chandeliers can hold a character's weight - if the first few attempts to swing from one result in a PC on his butt with a chandelier falling on him, they won't do that again in a hurry!

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either. It makes the combat system a little more dangerous for the PCs because it's swingier. But that's about it. With that in place, it's no more pulling the PCs strings from the GM's chair than a less swingy system. The players adjust to the system and play accordingly. You might as well condemn D&D for the same issue because, compared to Mutants and Masterminds, the damage is lethal rather than comic book.

Condemn? No. Identify that, in D&D, combat is more serious? Sure. The games are supposed to have a different tone. That said, the first time I played Hero System, I thought "wow - knockout rather than kill is a real possibility, not carefully contrived use of sub-optimal combat maneuver choices - kind of like how Conan gets beaten in combat, but awakens later, while D&D characters who fall in combat are dead unless quickly saved by a teammate". What source material are we trying to emulate, and what tropes from those materials to we want to emphasize? If I want the results of combat to be KO, as often or more often than Kill, then D&D is not the system to choose.

 

[N'raac]

* - in 30+ years of DMing and playing the longest combat I've ever seen was 38 rounds, and that was an all-defense PC fighting her own clone in melee; I think each required something like a natural 19 to hit the other.

I'll single this out separately as it's off topic. If it actually adds anything to the discussion, I started playing in the fall of 1980, and started DMing not long after, so that's going on 35 years now. If that helps you place my comments in context, great.

However, I've seen plenty of really good players and GM's with far less time invested. I've also had more than a few experiences when a raw newbie player added a lot to the game, or exposed weaknesses in its mechanics, when he tried to do something that the more jaded "standard tactic" players would never have considered, often because the game rules were ill equipped to handle that particular action. Something as simple as disarming a foe, or breaking his weapon, isn't really considered in 1e or 2e D&D. Many of us confronted with an odd problem immediately start looking for a spell to solve it, instead of thinking it through.

Knights of the Dinner Table had a fantastic example a few months ago, in an "old school dungeon" context. You open the door, and there is a huge gemstone on a pedestal. Spells and searches later, no traps are believed to be in the room. Character walks in, gemstone vanishes. Characters leave and come back, gemstone is back. Various different spells and strategies employed to retrieve the gem. All unsuccessful. Until

Spoiler

Go into the room.

Gem disappears.

Close the door.

Gem reappears.

Take the gem and leave the room.

Well done!

It was funny only because it was so true to actual game play.

On the other side of the coin, I've met no shortage of long-term gamers and GM's that I would not game with. Some treat their characters as disposable playing pawns, investing them with no personality, and have no ability to actually role play, just stack modifiers. Others are out for PvP and personal power above all else (the whole Munchkin line has been very successful largely because we all know such gamers), or may tone that down and are "only" power gamers within the party group. There's no shortage of threads on these boards alone about problem players and GM's, many of whom have been playing/GMing for many years.

In short "I've been doing this a long time" doesn't prove much. Some people learn and grow from experience. Others do not, or even become worse.

 

[Lanefan]

I think such a system would ideally be BAB-based, with a decision on which modifiers apply. For fumbles, I'd suggest weapon focus/specialization type bonuses should apply (representing skill) while STR bonuses (brute force) should not. Maybe a DEX bonus should always apply. For criticals, the roll to confirm is reasonable. I recall using a system some years back which used a % equal to the number of points you hit or missed by(minimum 1% chance), both on a natural 20 or 1, or on every hit.

There's a continuum again - any critical or fumble system adds a step, so it adds complexity to a system lacking criticals and fumbles.

True, but I feel a simple system is worth it.

To the first issue, I was simply thinking 11th level 3e warrior class. Different systems will have different numbers of attacks, of course, and different timeframes for rounds.

Ah, didn't realize you were coming at it from a 3e base. I'm coming from a 1e base, if it helps clarify anything.

To the second, I was not envisioning a single combat, but a series of combats totaling the relevant time period. But if you want 120 swings (not rounds - each attack can be a crit or a fumble), it's quite easy - wave upon wave of kobolds charge the 11th level Warrior. In fact, that 11th level warrior surrounded by a swarm of kobolds or goblins in 1e is in trouble, Each kobold/goblin attacks once per round, so 8 attacks, with 1 in 20 rolling a nat 20, and 3 in 10 being critical, is 1 Crit in 67 shots - should be every 8th or 9th round as the horde of kobolds attack the mighty warrior. Maybe no big deal, since multiplying damage of the kobold probably isn't that big a threat.

That 11th-level Fighter is in mild trouble only if she gets a very poor initiative score in the second round; in 1e the run-of-the-mill Kobold is less than 1 HD meaning that Fighter's going to get her two (maybe three if you're using specialization) attacks in the first round after which she's going to open up with one attack per level per round - that's 11 attacks per round assuming she can even reach that many Kobolds!

That said, in my view a swarm of 100 Kobolds vs. a single 11th-level Fighter should present a real serious threat to said Fighter...serious enough that if she just stands in and whales away there's a very high chance she'll get roughed up, with death a distinct possibility*. However, chances are said Fighter is travelling with some other characters with different skills who can help out some.

* - also note in 1e even a natural 20 doesn't guarantee a hit; if Ms. Fighty's AC is good enough she might, by RAW, be effectively immune to their attacks...in which case there's no real threat at all.

But the fighter can attack up to 11 creatures of less than 1 HD per round, so he can swing on all eight every round. 1 in 20 rolls is a 1, with a 1 in 6 chance of a fumble, so he will fumble every 15 rounds, on average. So much for our skilled, experienced, trained warrior. Meanwhile, the kobolds, goblins or commoners would have to swing 120 times before they would fumble, so it will almost never happen. Objectively, they each fumble every 120 swings, so they are equal (which is bad enough), but they won't FEEL equal in play - it will feel like the warrior fumbles a lot, especially compared to other characters who have less martial skill.

Depends what the fumble causes. If she merely nicks herself or twists her knee for a couple of points damage (probably the most commn result) no big deal, ditto if she stumbles and gives her foe(s) a free shot. But if she drops her weapon (or worse, manages to throw it away) that might be more of a headache...though an 11th-level Fighter is bound to have a few backup weapons to hand.

Depends on what you do. If you just generate the character, scratch out III and write in IV behind the same name the last three had and carry on, generating a character won't take as long as if you invest some time fleshing out his background, history and personality. But the former isn't a character, just a playing pawn on the game board/battlemat. It's the background, history and personality that make those scribbled numbers a CHARACTER.

For me, the character comes from its personality to begin with; I worry about background etc. once he or she has lasted long enough to become relevant. (note that I tend to play many of my characters straight into their graves, I'm kind of high-risk high-reward that way)

I recall one game with Crits and Fumbles where a frustrated player noted "we go out poor, seeking treasure. We come back, have to sell all the treasure and pawn a few of our own possessions to regenerate the losses from crits and fumbles". Not an issue for your "multiply the damage" system, at least, unless your fumbles have more grave consequences.

A fumble can sometimes break a weapon, and I've seen some pretty high-end magic weapons roll a '1' on their save over the years. But my games tend to be pretty high in their magic content, running very much on an "easy come, easy go" ideal. (example: carried and-or worn items all have to save for themselves if the character fails a save vs. area damage e.g. fireball, ice storm, etc., obviously this holds true for the opponents as well)

Whether intentional ("When 6 crossbowmen say 'Drop your weapons and put your hands on your hands on your heads', I want those PC's to comply - we need critical hits to put that fear into them") or not ("Critical hits and fumbles make combat more exciting!"), the mechanics of the game influence the approaches taken by the players. Regardless of the reason for their addition, crits and fumbles make combat riskier. Players will play accordingly. Maybe that's good - they are more inclined to parley, use stealth and otherwise work to avoid combat, making the game more than hack and slash the monsters and steal their loot. Maybe it's not - players invest less effort bringing the characters to life because they're unlikely to last more than a few game sessions before falling to some random crit or fumble, no matter how skillfully they are played.

To me that just makes it more satisfying when one *does* last and become a star.

But, for good or ill, mechanics change player behaviour.

Actual players, yes - in a mechanics-driven system such as 3e players seem to spend far more time looking at their character sheets than in a less-mechanical system like 1e (or simplified 5e?). Characters? From my own experience it doesn't seem to make much difference...maybe it's just the players I run with.

You note yourself that avoiding combat is common sense, but if the intent is a cinematic, action movie feel, then trepidation about entering combat pulls against, rather than towards, the goal. Kind of like, if you want a real swashbuckler feel, then chandeliers can hold a character's weight - if the first few attempts to swing from one result in a PC on his butt with a chandelier falling on him, they won't do that again in a hurry!

I don't at all mind a swashbuckling sort of feel but at the same time I don't want guaranteed success (or guaranteed failure) because that *would* change character behavior...same as if they somehow knew they couldn't die (and there's DMs out there who do this)...the ridiculous would become commonplace.

All the better to be able to pull off that incredible swashbuckling move despite the known (and maybe unknown) risks. Yes, you might pull off that daring chandelier swing and get to the door before Dr. Dastardly runs off with the fair damsel...or you might make a meal of it and end up on the floor. Again - high risk, high reward.

Lan-"if I'm gonna swing from that chandelier in all this armour it had better be held to the ceiling with anchor chain"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I'll single this out separately as it's off topic. If it actually adds anything to the discussion, I started playing in the fall of 1980, and started DMing not long after, so that's going on 35 years now. If that helps you place my comments in context, great.

It does, and thanks.

Knights of the Dinner Table had a fantastic example a few months ago, in an "old school dungeon" context. You open the door, and there is a huge gemstone on a pedestal. Spells and searches later, no traps are believed to be in the room. Character walks in, gemstone vanishes. Characters leave and come back, gemstone is back. Various different spells and strategies employed to retrieve the gem. All unsuccessful. Until

Spoiler

Go into the room.

Gem disappears.

Close the door.

Gem reappears.

Take the gem and leave the room.

Well done!

It was funny only because it was so true to actual game play.

And if it is? I fail to see a problem with anything in that scenario.

On the other side of the coin, I've met no shortage of long-term gamers and GM's that I would not game with. Some treat their characters as disposable playing pawns, investing them with no personality, and have no ability to actually role play, just stack modifiers.

Less an issue in 1e where there's fewer modifiers to stack, but personality in our crew has rarely been a problem.

Others are out for PvP and personal power above all else (the whole Munchkin line has been very successful largely because we all know such gamers), or may tone that down and are "only" power gamers within the party group.

As long as it stays in character PvP is just part of the game around here, and people know that going in.

In short "I've been doing this a long time" doesn't prove much. Some people learn and grow from experience. Others do not, or even become worse.

True, but note the only reason I noted my longevity to begin with was to frame the longest-combat record I mentioned.

Lan-"growing from experience one level at a time"-efan

 

[N'raac]

Ah, didn't realize you were coming at it from a 3e base. I'm coming from a 1e base, if it helps clarify anything.

20/20 hindsight, 3e was the last one I should have picked as you clearly had to add criticals.

That 11th-level Fighter is in mild trouble only if she gets a very poor initiative score in the second round; in 1e the run-of-the-mill Kobold is less than 1 HD meaning that Fighter's going to get her two (maybe three if you're using specialization) attacks in the first round after which she's going to open up with one attack per level per round - that's 11 attacks per round assuming she can even reach that many Kobolds!

Round after round after round. Since NOTHING affects initiative rolls in 1e, outside ties the kobolds will win half the time.

That said, in my view a swarm of 100 Kobolds vs. a single 11th-level Fighter should present a real serious threat to said Fighter...serious enough that if she just stands in and whales away there's a very high chance she'll get roughed up, with death a distinct possibility*. However, chances are said Fighter is travelling with some other characters with different skills who can help out some.

I think the "1 attack per level per round" suggests that the 1e designer thought they should not be a serious threat. But really, all we have to do is keep tossing Kobolds at the fighter until he Fumbles himself to death. Of course, if his AC is good enough that the Kobold literally cannot hit (IIRC, the 20 repeated half a dozen times then moved to 21, but it's possible), then he can just stop attacking. Sadly, this IMPROVES his survival odds - unless the kobolds remember how to Overbear, anyway. As I recall, Overbearing would be their best bet, not just attacking. At a couple of points of damage from each fumble, it will take a while to whittle away, say, 83 hp (5.5 average per level +2 for a generous 16 CON), but a LOT of kobolds would be needed to fight a L11 fighter.

If she tosses her weapon away, and a Kobold picks it up, he could possibly roll higher than a 20 (and could get a critical on that nat 20 as well - 30% of Kobold hits will be critical if they need a nat 20 to hit).

For me, the character comes from its personality to begin with; I worry about background etc. once he or she has lasted long enough to become relevant. (note that I tend to play many of my characters straight into their graves, I'm kind of high-risk high-reward that way)

AND

To me that just makes it more satisfying when one *does* last and become a star.

Everyone has different ways of building a character. To me, the background often explains some of that personality. But your approach is what I think swingy combat and short PC lifespans incent - don't put a lot of time and effort into the character, since most will not last long enough to become relevant. With combat inevitable and common, go high risk/high reward - sooner or later, one of the lemmings I roll up will get lucky!

Does it really make it more satisfying when, more by luck than by any player skill, one of the characters gets lucky? I guess so, for many players - I see it in Talisman, for example. It doesn't strike me as a great recipe for a role playing driven game as opposed to an endless dungeon crawl.

Actual players, yes - in a mechanics-driven system such as 3e players seem to spend far more time looking at their character sheets than in a less-mechanical system like 1e (or simplified 5e?). Characters? From my own experience it doesn't seem to make much difference...maybe it's just the players I run with.

Critical hits and fumbles add mechanics, making the system more mechanics driven. I would expect the players you run with to fit with your style, and enjoy a high risk, high reward, swingy combat, frequent character death system. Those are the players that would stay in such a game, and you noted you have been running games for a long time - I doubt your style has changed markedly over those years. A player looking for something else in a game will either find another group, or conclude your group represents the hobby and find something else to do.

Back to KoDT, when Bob's dad plays in a Western game, only to storm out because he was always told these games were about Heros, not Back shooting dry gulchers - you'd never see The Duke behave like that! But the game rules motivated ambushes, not "fair" gunfights a la John Wayne Westerns.

I don't at all mind a swashbuckling sort of feel but at the same time I don't want guaranteed success (or guaranteed failure) because that *would* change character behavior...same as if they somehow knew they couldn't die (and there's DMs out there who do this)...the ridiculous would become commonplace.

Define ridiculous. One example upthread, IIRC, was L1 characters attacking a dragon. But, if I have 1 chance in 10,000 in killing a dragon, thereby gaining obscene levels of xp, treasure and power, that's high risk/high reward, and I'll get that one satisfying character who makes it sooner or later. To me, an endless series of characters throwing themselves into near-certain death in the hopes of getting lucky due to a high risk/high reward paradigm is ridiculous. How many people would buy lottery tickets if the losers were executed?

Swinging from the chandeliers when it will succeed only one time in 10, or 100, may make sense when I can toss hundreds of characters in to try. But if the characters keep trying, either they clearly are too stupid to have a sense of the risks, or they are simply bat**** insane. This, to me, is the kind of ridiculous behaviour I don't want in my game - what semi-rational person would try something with a 1/10% chance of success where the consequences of failure are devastating? These are not characters - they are game pawns.