Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6661213" data-attributes="member: 87792">(Inspired by <a href="http://boingboing.net/2013/09/16/critical-hits-a-history-of-a.html" target="_blank">this BoingBoing article</a>)Gygax hated critical hits and wanted them nowhere near his D&D. Nevertheless a lot of fans (although not all) did, and in the end those who did won. So who was right in what they wanted?Both groups. Of course. Some things are a matter of taste and what you consider fun. And some things work well to some ends and not others.The case for critical hits is obvious. They are flashy, they are exciting, they add a spike of adrenaline to any game, and they make that natural 20 feel worthwhile. At an immediate emotional level they are clearly a good thing.The case against them depends on what you are trying to do. Gygax was writing a tight, gritty dungeon crawler. When you are writing a tense game the added swinginess caused by critical hits is a bad thing because it forces PCs to use much wider safety margins, and they have the dice rather than their foolhardiness to blame.  For the game Gygax was writing, adding critical hits would have been like going for the cheap laugh that undermines the tension in the scene.But not everyone played or plays D&D the way Gygax intended. oD&D and 1e rightfully do not have critical hits. But the Dragonlance Saga is all about the story and the big moments over the tension. It even has the obscure death rule. It should have used critical hits because although the rules were the same the intended game wasn't. You weren't playing with the risk/reward axis for a delve.Like Dragonlance, 2e should have had crits. It actively advocates fudging dice, and is a game where the instructions are about story and about encounters. There's also precious little in the way of tactics.3.0 made some ... interesting ... decisions on crits. The tagline of 3.0 was "Back to the dungeon". And in a dungeoncrawler the same applies to crits as did in oD&D. They take away tension. They also mean that a normal orc who rolls a natural 20 to hit (and confirms) can threaten PCs well above the orc's level while being strawberry jam if the PCs hit first. Again, this throws planning into the lap of the dice and makes building specific tension harder. Not good for a dungeon crawler. Also sudden death out of nowhere works much better when you can roll up a character in only a couple of minutes than when you have a massive list of skills.3.5 made the decision not to change crits. With the emergent eggshells-wielding-sledgehammers of 3.0 Save-or-Suck spellcasting this was almost the right decision. Fast kills and one shots fitted with the rest of the game. The part of critical hits they should have changed is simple - the confirmation roll is a step that only ever disappoints people and should have been eliminated.4e had wimpy crits. Which mean you can plan for them thus not undermining the tactical game so much. But not giving the emotional high to the people who wanted it. It also sufferered a second problem: rolling dice is fun - there were people who'd prefer not to roll crits in 4e and that is something that should never happen. The 4e critical rules therefore are ... useless. (Oddly enough 4e with Dark Sun had the best critical failure rules I've seen in any system).5e crits are good. Not especially powerful (a good thing). But noticeable - especially to anyone with the kinaesthetic sensibilities to like an extra dice in their hand. They fit with the rest of the game, they feel good without unbalancing things - and they don't undermine the strategic risk management side. They could be seamlessly transferred to 4e and improve the game slightly. They make a dent in the risk management, but not an extreme one - but they provide the acknowledgement and emotional high the people who want crits are seeking. As good a compromise as I've seen for a game that's trying to do most things rather than any one thing spectacularly well.</blockquote>

Verification