Critical Hits - why, and why not?

[N'raac]

It does, and thanks.

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

It's made funnier by the experienced team of gamers repeatedly trying and failing for hours, only to have a pre-schooler player get the gem in a minute, because she didn't confine her thinking to game mechanics.

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

I don't know your players, so can't say whether this is a discussion of "personality", "quirky characters" or "caricatures". To me, a character with true personality can be differentiated quickly and easily from other characters played by the same player, and is not defined by one or two quirks.

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

"Stays in character" is easy to say. But if every character I bring in just happens to hate "race of other player's character", and is "out for myself above all else", then all my PvP against that one other player's character is perfectly in character. This is simply an extrapolation of "I am only playing my character" holds little water if you, as the player, chose to create a character who is a jerk (insert choicer words if preferred). A steady succession of jerk characters gives me some pretty solid insights on the player, in my view.

 

[Lanefan]

It's made funnier by the experienced team of gamers repeatedly trying and failing for hours, only to have a pre-schooler player get the gem in a minute, because she didn't confine her thinking to game mechanics.

Ah. Missed the bit about the pre-schooler, if it was mentioned before at all.

I don't know your players, so can't say whether this is a discussion of "personality", "quirky characters" or "caricatures". To me, a character with true personality can be differentiated quickly and easily from other characters played by the same player, and is not defined by one or two quirks.

The quirks are a fine starting point, and it often quickly grows from there.

"Stays in character" is easy to say. But if every character I bring in just happens to hate "race of other player's character", and is "out for myself above all else", then all my PvP against that one other player's character is perfectly in character. This is simply an extrapolation of "I am only playing my character" holds little water if you, as the player, chose to create a character who is a jerk (insert choicer words if preferred). A steady succession of jerk characters gives me some pretty solid insights on the player, in my view.

True, which puts it down on the player who is always repeating the same theme to try something different. The trick is to mix it up...have one character be well-meaning but very unwise who constantly blunders into danger and wandering monsters, have the next be a cheerful optimistic sort who always does the noble thing, have the next be a dour military sergeant giving orders all the time, have the next be of neutral-greedy alignment around whom nothing of value is safe, and so forth; with personalities - and likes and dislikes within the party - to suit. And yes, some players are better at this than others.

The real fun comes when two (or more) characters who don't like each other very much stick around long enough to build a real good rivalry.

Lan-"the ability to vary one's voice and accent *really* helps with characterization, no matter how much some may scoff at the thought"-efan

 

[N'raac]

Ah. Missed the bit about the pre-schooler, if it was mentioned before at all.

It wasn't - not really germane to the initial point that players often look for the spell or magic item that will resolve the problem, without considering more mundane solutions that use brain power and are not specifically written up in the rule books.

The quirks are a fine starting point, and it often quickly grows from there.

If character lifespans are short, it often does not grow, but likely does not need to. If they are longer, often the character still does not grow, but clings to initial quirks despite all experience to the contrary. After years of adventuring with an Elven warrior, with each saving the other's life a dozen times over, the Dwarf still clings to the "all elves are effeminate girly-men" quirk he opened his in-game appearances in, for example.

True, which puts it down on the player who is always repeating the same theme to try something different.

If the characters have short lifespans, quickly cut off, the potential of the character does not get played out, so the player keeps bringing the same personality back in new bodies, hoping to actually play out this character. Or just reaches the point of "why bother imbuing the character with any real personality - he won't likely live long enough to matter", and we get the classic "character personality designed to let me do whatever seems most advantageous at the time".

The real fun comes when two (or more) characters who don't like each other very much stick around long enough to build a real good rivalry.

Again, requiring they live long enough to have that rivalry build up. In the source material, this tends to happen. With swingy combats, not so much.

I'm not sure your critical/fumble system has the extreme effect others have complained of (or are looking for) upthread, but assuming that 8,9,10 multiple means x2, x3, x4, it seems like 1 attack in 200 will be devastating, especially if the initial damage started out high. But in 1e, base damage tends to be pretty low - a 6th level character hit for 3 - 12 x 4 (average 30) is probably hurt, but "dead" isn't too likely. Make it a CR6 Ettin in 3e, 2d6+6 x 4 averaging 52, and death seems more likely. Your fumble system sounds designed more for momentary inconvenience than deadly results as well (as opposed to the "hit friend for full damage" model). The less extreme results will carry less extreme effects on player actions.

Lan-"the ability to vary one's voice and accent *really* helps with characterization, no matter how much some may scoff at the thought"-efan

It can, actually. Some of this, at least to me, is a carrythrough of the player actually 'hearing' how his character sounds - literally finding his voice, Accent, tone, pace of speech, word choice, etc. If your character is excitable, talking fast, waving your arms in the air and quickly walking back and forth by the table conveys that a lot better than calmly speaking from your chair in a monotone!

 

[Lanefan]

If character lifespans are short, it often does not grow, but likely does not need to. If they are longer, often the character still does not grow, but clings to initial quirks despite all experience to the contrary. After years of adventuring with an Elven warrior, with each saving the other's life a dozen times over, the Dwarf still clings to the "all elves are effeminate girly-men" quirk he opened his in-game appearances in, for example.

But does said Dwarf at least acknowledge this particular "girly-man" has had his back a few times? Very easy to get to "You're OK but the rest of them are still ponces".

I'm not sure your critical/fumble system has the extreme effect others have complained of (or are looking for) upthread, but assuming that 8,9,10 multiple means x2, x3, x4, it seems like 1 attack in 200 will be devastating, especially if the initial damage started out high. But in 1e, base damage tends to be pretty low - a 6th level character hit for 3 - 12 x 4 (average 30) is probably hurt, but "dead" isn't too likely. Make it a CR6 Ettin in 3e, 2d6+6 x 4 averaging 52, and death seems more likely. Your fumble system sounds designed more for momentary inconvenience than deadly results as well (as opposed to the "hit friend for full damage" model). The less extreme results will carry less extreme effects on player actions.

Don't get me wrong: "hit friend (or self) for full damage is in there - even hit friend or self for critical - but the odds are quite low. Throw weapon, drop or damage shield (if in use), drop weapon, damage or break weapon, grant free attack to foe, etc. - all these things are possible, with some more likely than others on a d% table. The most likely, though, is minor damage to someone you weren't trying to hurt.

For crits, you're quite right that 8-9-0 gives x2-x3-x4, and occasionally a big-damage event (e.g. an incoming boulder from a Stone Giant) combined with a critical can leave a smeary mess on the floor. It happens, and revival magic is available (at some cost) for thems as wants it.

It can, actually. Some of this, at least to me, is a carrythrough of the player actually 'hearing' how his character sounds - literally finding his voice, Accent, tone, pace of speech, word choice, etc. If your character is excitable, talking fast, waving your arms in the air and quickly walking back and forth by the table conveys that a lot better than calmly speaking from your chair in a monotone!

Absolutely!

Lan-"my voice is fine, but what it says is very often censored"-efan

 

[N'raac]

But does said Dwarf at least acknowledge this particular "girly-man" has had his back a few times? Very easy to get to "You're OK but the rest of them are still ponces".

That's what I'm looking for - some growth that maybe some elves, this one at least, is OK. Not "My character disrespects Elves. It was on my quirks when we started, and he can never grow beyond it." Well of course he can't - it's the only shred of personality he has!

Don't get me wrong: "hit friend (or self) for full damage is in there - even hit friend or self for critical - but the odds are quite low. Throw weapon, drop or damage shield (if in use), drop weapon, damage or break weapon, grant free attack to foe, etc. - all these things are possible, with some more likely than others on a d% table. The most likely, though, is minor damage to someone you weren't trying to hurt.

For crits, you're quite right that 8-9-0 gives x2-x3-x4, and occasionally a big-damage event (e.g. an incoming boulder from a Stone Giant) combined with a critical can leave a smeary mess on the floor. It happens, and revival magic is available (at some cost) for thems as wants it.

I get back to the down side always being to the PCs. 1 attack in 200 will hit him for 4x damage. OK, if an average combat goes, say, 5 rounds, and he's always up there, every 40 combats will see quadruple damage inflicted on this character. Assuming it's one on one, not multiple attackers, of course. That will make it more frequent. But it is less frequent for the guys who aren't always out there in melee. Now, if Raise Dead and the like are readily available, death becomes an inconvenience rather than new character time, which also influence player behaviour.

As for the Fumble, it will take 12,000 attacks (1 in 20 x 1 in 6 x 1 in 100) on average to get a fumble that rolls any one specific percentage. So if our warrior fights for 5 rounds per combat on average (I remember 1e being quite a bit longer, but OK) with 3 attacks/2 rounds (not attained until higher levels in 1e, but offsets some of the understated rounds), that's 7 attacks per average combat, so over 1,700 before he gets that one specific fumble. But it will still come up eventually. At least it isn't automatic death, and if it is, off we go to the clerics.

In fact, reducing the results to dropped/damaged/broken equipment and hit points damage removes a lot of the worst extremes of many critical hit systems ("I go pick up my ear - I swear these tables are biased toward ears!")

Completely irrelevant, but I just noticed how close you are geographically. Victoria is a nice city.

 

[Lanefan]

I get back to the down side always being to the PCs. 1 attack in 200 will hit him for 4x damage. OK, if an average combat goes, say, 5 rounds, and he's always up there, every 40 combats will see quadruple damage inflicted on this character. Assuming it's one on one, not multiple attackers, of course. That will make it more frequent. But it is less frequent for the guys who aren't always out there in melee. Now, if Raise Dead and the like are readily available, death becomes an inconvenience rather than new character time, which also influence player behaviour.

Keep in mind also that of those 1 in 200 attacks that do quad damage some of the damage rolls might not be stellar: a 1 or 2 quadrupled isn't going to bother many PCs.

Just while typing this it's occurred to me a straight multiplier probably slightly favours PCs in one aspect: they usually have more bonuses and add-ons than their enemies, which all get multiplied. Also, if something already has a multiplier built in e.g. a Thief's backstrike or a Giantslayer weapon the multipliers stack. It's remotely possible in the exact right circumstances for a PC with the right equipment to give out over 500 points damage in a single swing*, but it's never happened in I don't know how many thousand sessions of play. Anything over 100 is very rare, and our all-time record is, I think, 160.

* let's try a ridiculous extreme just for kicks: Fighter-9/Thief-9 with Str. 18.00 [Gauntlets of Ogre Power, +6 dmg.] backstriking [x4] a Giant using a Giantslayer [+5, x2] longsword and Prayer [+1] in effect, hitting a max. crit [x4]: longswords in 1e do d12 vs. large, so roll 12 + 12 = 24 then multiply by 4 then 2 then 4 gives, by my math, 768 points of damage. Even if you use d8 for the longsword damage you're still looking at a theoretical maximum 640 points. Please note the odds of doing this are pretty damn slim; slim enough it might happen once in a lifetime and I'm quite fine with that, and if you pull it off you'll be on the ballot for Play of the Year.

As for the Fumble, it will take 12,000 attacks (1 in 20 x 1 in 6 x 1 in 100) on average to get a fumble that rolls any one specific percentage. So if our warrior fights for 5 rounds per combat on average (I remember 1e being quite a bit longer, but OK) with 3 attacks/2 rounds (not attained until higher levels in 1e, but offsets some of the understated rounds), that's 7 attacks per average combat, so over 1,700 before he gets that one specific fumble. But it will still come up eventually. At least it isn't automatic death, and if it is, off we go to the clerics.

In fact, reducing the results to dropped/damaged/broken equipment and hit points damage removes a lot of the worst extremes of many critical hit systems ("I go pick up my ear - I swear these tables are biased toward ears!")

We've slightly tweaked the critical system numerous times over the years, but the fumble system we use has been one of our most stable houserules ever. About the only thing that ever changes are entries in the results table if something new comes up e.g. the opponent getting a free attack was inspired by the 3e AoO mechanic.

Completely irrelevant, but I just noticed how close you are geographically. Victoria is a nice city.

Expensive, though.

Lan-"what's truly scary is that 640 points damage might merely annoy any major 4e monster out there"-efan

 

[N'raac]

Keep in mind also that of those 1 in 200 attacks that do quad damage some of the damage rolls might not be stellar: a 1 or 2 quadrupled isn't going to bother many PCs.

Just while typing this it's occurred to me a straight multiplier probably slightly favours PCs in one aspect: they usually have more bonuses and add-ons than their enemies, which all get multiplied. Also, if something already has a multiplier built in e.g. a Thief's backstrike or a Giantslayer weapon the multipliers stack. It's remotely possible in the exact right circumstances for a PC with the right equipment to give out over 500 points damage in a single swing*, but it's never happened in I don't know how many thousand sessions of play. Anything over 100 is very rare, and our all-time record is, I think, 160.

In my view, criticals don't really favour PC's. They may get lucky and take out an opponent very easily. So what? There will be lots more opponents. Were they in combat with an enemy they were not expected to defeat? Even if they were, I suspect a new Big Bad will emerge, rather than Goodness and Light returning to the land for a hundred generations, so the PC's never have to face a true threat again. And there is nothing preventing our PC's being backstabbed by an opponent who is a Thief, or has a Humanslayer, or Elfslayer, or Mageslayer, etc. weapon, is there?

The bottom line is that loss of a PC has much greater impact than any single opponent being taken down.

Please note the odds of doing this are pretty damn slim; slim enough it might happen once in a lifetime and I'm quite fine with that, and if you pull it off you'll be on the ballot for Play of the Year.

emphasis added. WHY? The player did nothing special. He didn't make a brilliant, creative move. He fluked out on the dice and got lucky. Why does he deserve any credit for that? Maybe we need a ballot for "Fluke of the Year" instead.

 

[Lanefan]

emphasis added. WHY? The player did nothing special. He didn't make a brilliant, creative move. He fluked out on the dice and got lucky. Why does he deserve any credit for that? Maybe we need a ballot for "Fluke of the Year" instead.

Sometimes the play of the year* just comes from simply having something spectacular happen for you at the right place and time; such as a last-chance critical into an opponent who's otherwise about to wipe out the party. Other times it's an entire particularly memorable combat. Several times it's been won for a character dying in an unusually noble or ridiculous way; and so on. Amazingly, it's twice been won for a theft from the party and once for blowing up the party with friendly fire!

* - these awards (of which play of the year is but one) are voted on at year's end by the players within each of our campaigns, and go back to 1981.

Lan-"winner of the 1985 play of the year for, you guessed it, a theft from the party (said theft started a side-story that went on for several years)"-efan

 

[pemerton]

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.

In the context of D&D, and especially pre-d20 D&D, I think this sort of thing is best handled via narration around the attack rolls. Eg the player rolls and his/her PC misses, then the GM rolls and the orc hits - the GM can narrate that as the PC losing his/her footing and the orc then taking advantage of that.

The system doesn't really have the granularity of detail in other respects to support fumbles at that level of detail. (Contrast, say, 4e, which does have that level of granularity for attack results and hence might be a better candidate for comparably granular fumble results. Though they would push against another aspect of 4e, namely, it's generally heroic tone.)

 

[N'raac]

In the context of D&D, and especially pre-d20 D&D, I think this sort of thing is best handled via narration around the attack rolls. Eg the player rolls and his/her PC misses, then the GM rolls and the orc hits - the GM can narrate that as the PC losing his/her footing and the orc then taking advantage of that.

The system doesn't really have the granularity of detail in other respects to support fumbles at that level of detail.

I don't disagree, but my post is less focused on arguing for the addition of critical hits and fumbles than on the assumption we will have them and, if so, why is there no result between "add a few more hp damage" and "consult limb loss subtable". We played with a model of varying severity of critical hits, but we had to assess how the various curative-type spells would interact with these longer-term effects.

The bigger picture problem is not far off the broader discussion above, that these work against the PC's in the long run. If you injure, break or sever the Orc's arm, so what? He's dead in a couple more rounds, tops, either way. But the PC has to get by with a wounded/useless/missing arm until it heals/gets healed/gets regrown/gets replaced with The Arm of Vecna/whatever. It creates a death spiral as the PC's keep getting more and more battered as the scenario goes on.

But if they are viewed as desirable, or even essential, the justification tends to be "realism" (as you note, often at the cost of "heroism), then "arms are either hale and hearty or severed - no possibility exists between these points" isn't very realistic, and a PC with a sore arm that will recover after a couple of hours is a lot more playable than one whose arm is in his backpack in the hope a cleric can reattach it back in town.