Explain the appeal of critical fumbles to me

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm playing in a homebrew game right now, and getting a feel for the setting and the DMing style and so on, so I haven't been rocking the boat, just paying attention and trying to absorb.

One of the things this DM uses is a critical fumble mechanism. One hasn't happened yet, but people have been close (he uses confirming for fumbles just like crits), and I'm starting to wonder what the appeal is.

Rules dictate what sort of game comes out the other end, and even influence what kind of game can be played. With a 1:400 chance that any attack roll can lead to accidentally maiming oneself, obviously this isn't meant to be a heroic game.

DMs (and players) who like critical fumbles, what's the appeal? What type of games are you looking for in your games? This is obviously a mismatch of expectations here, so I'm wondering what my expectations should be.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm playing in a homebrew game right now, and getting a feel for the setting and the DMing style and so on, so I haven't been rocking the boat, just paying attention and trying to absorb.

One of the things this DM uses is a critical fumble mechanism. One hasn't happened yet, but people have been close (he uses confirming for fumbles just like crits), and I'm starting to wonder what the appeal is.

Rules dictate what sort of game comes out the other end, and even influence what kind of game can be played. With a 1:400 chance that any attack roll can lead to accidentally maiming oneself, obviously this isn't meant to be a heroic game.

DMs (and players) who like critical fumbles, what's the appeal? What type of games are you looking for in your games? This is obviously a mismatch of expectations here, so I'm wondering what my expectations should be.

I use crtiical fumbles in my games. I like them because in battle bad things can happen as well as good. It also seems balanced to me that if you can crit on a 20 a 1 should have some kind of effect.

How I do it in my game is if you roll a 1 you then role a reflex save to see if you dropped your weapon , broke a bow string or lost your balance and fell in all the gore. If you roll under a 15 you drop your weapon if you roll under a 10 you fall.

My players like it and we have used since the days of 2ED.

 

[Mallus]

Violent accidents are funny as hell (cf. any slapstick comedy).

D&D campaigns might aspire to be the Lord of the Rings, but experienced players know they usually end up being more like the Three Stooges in elf-drag. Or perhaps Warner Brothers cartoons in elf-drag, Daffy Duck is nothing if not the quintessential scheming, oft-beaten 1e adventurer.

"The secret heart of Dungeons and Dragons is comedy, not heroism". I believe Twain said that.

 

[blargney the second]

I like them in the same sorts of games that I like the deck of many things. It's a special kind of game that I don't always feel like playing...

 

[Morrus]

I think it's the comic-relief thing.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I use crtiical fumbles in my games. I like them because in battle bad things can happen as well as good. It also seems balanced to me that if you can crit on a 20 a 1 should have some kind of effect.

Exactly. If you give the players the chance for the ultimate good, then by logic they must also have the chance for the ultimate bad.

I also think that adds a hint of realism. In a battle, any number of things could happen. So yeah, you could hit the monster in just the right spot to kill it. Or, you could break your weapon.

How I do it in my game is if you roll a 1 you then role a reflex save to see if you dropped your weapon , broke a bow string or lost your balance and fell in all the gore. If you roll under a 15 you drop your weapon if you roll under a 10 you fall.

I tend to do a Reflex save a lot, though I always have it be based on the situation. So any number of things can happen.

My players like it and we have used since the days of 2ED.

I used "Good Hits and Bad Misses" a lot in 2e.

Then we also had our homebrew "Death...Hollywood Style!" chart. Ah, the good ol' days.

 

[T. Foster]

Because a monster managing to bite off its own head (and coming up with an explanation for how it happened) is HIGH-larious, especially at 3am when everybody's hopped up on Mountain Dew and Tootsie Rolls

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Exactly. If you give the players the chance for the ultimate good, then by logic they must also have the chance for the ultimate bad.

Why? That's not really based in logic so much as in preference.

What does it add to your game that your level 18 fighter (or whatever) can accidentally shatter his own kneecap in the middle of a battle, no matter how experienced he might be with a mace, which just happens to be one blessed by the gods and which he was destined to carry into battle, according to an ancient prophecy?

I also think that adds a hint of realism. In a battle, any number of things could happen. So yeah, you could hit the monster in just the right spot to kill it. Or, you could break your weapon.

Sure, but there's a LOT of places that D&D could add realism. Dysentery should probably be a threat in every D&D game, but Paizo's not putting out a Critical Bowel Movements Deck as a result. What's the particular appeal of critical fumbles?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Because a monster managing to bite off its own head (and coming up with an explanation for how it happened) is HIGH-larious, especially at 3am when everybody's hopped up on Mountain Dew and Tootsie Rolls

So it's the comedy factor? Do you use it for all games, or just selected ones?

 

[Crothian]

In none serious games they add another element of fun and randomness. But even more serious games like the WoD have them built in the core rules. It adds a little bit of risk and uncertainty to rolls.