Explain the appeal of critical fumbles to me

[Voadam]

Increased randomness and chaos in combat. Things can succeed, fail, succeed really well, or fail spectacularly, and part of that is up to the dice and chance/fate, not your choices or ability.

With confirming for crit fumbles this means skilled warriors are less likely to fail spectacularly than novices on any given blow.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm using critical fumbles at the moment because my players requested it. I don't particuarlly like them but some of them do. A couple of my players dislike them because the more attacks you have the greater the chance of a random fumble.

I think for my next campaign I will drop them.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

In general, I don't use and don't miss them. But in games where they are present, I think they're a nice touch of realism, besides mimicking action movies. I know from my experience with combat sports that fumbles are all too common... it's a rare thing for a tournament to go by without one of the star fighters dropping their sword, hitting themselves in the face, or even tripping and falling down.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I used to like critical fumbles simply for symmetry with critical hits. Having played Heroes a bit with a DM who uses a luck mechanic (& I don't know Heroes rules well enough to know if that's core or houseruled), I find that I like the concept that crits (good or bad) seem to be trying to emulate a lot (a bit of luck in combat), but don't like the implementation in D&D.

What I like about the luck mechanic this particular DM uses is that it sets the stage for some wonky high-drama scenes - suddenly something completely unexpected (& with his descriptions, usually quite cinematic) happens, & the result can have a significant effect on the encounter. A good result is worth a lot more than a crit, while a bad result is worse than a dropped or broken weapon - but without being an automatic or tabulated result that leaves us maimed or without equipment. I think the DMing is key, here, as some of our most entertaining moments have come from dealing with bizarre, 'oh sh...!' results of bad luck rolls.

The main difference from the D&D mechanic is that the player usually chooses to take this wild chance; there is no automatic 1/x crit chance on every attack roll (I believe one character has a power that forces him to make luck rolls at times, but don't know for certain). This allows the DM to give the outcome a greater effect than crits in D&D, & lets the players avoid risking harsh negatives if we so prefer.

 

[Filcher]

The first place I ever saw Crit Fumbles was in ICE's Middle Earth Role Playing. They had some downright vicious (and creative) fumbles --- "tripping over imaginary turtles and stabbing yourself in the face ... stagger around for 1d4 rounds then die" sort of thing.

I think, but don't know, that crit fumbles were born out of the idea of balance. If a hero can do really well, he ought to be able to do really poorly. For me, the math doesn't hold up:

Imagine an army going to battle. In the course of a daylong spree of hacking and slashing (hundreds of attack rolls), statistically every single soldier on either side would have critted themselves to death. Thousands of orcs and paladins, all falling dead by their own sword.

It's amusing to think about, but not the sort of game for me.

It would make more sense, to me, for a critical fumble to leave you open to an opponent's attack. (Maybe a free AoO?) You screw up and maybe you pay for it, but only if the guy opposite you is on top of his game.

 

[Celebrim]

...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.

D&D combat tends toward the repeatitive unless you have a DM that really works to keep it otherwise. Much like critical hits, critical fumbles make for good stories. They cause unexpected things to occur in the middle of what might otherwise be simple arithmatic. Suddenly, your fighter drops his sword and slings 10' over into another square. The team is now presented with an interesting problem it needs to solve, which might turn another dull fight against an ogre into something interesting.

Critical fumbles IMO are a more interesting mechanic than critical hits. If I had to get rid of one or the other, I'd get rid of critical hits. As a player and DM, I find critical hits produce far more random PC deaths than fumbles do (although, there was that time with the oil of slipperyness and the vorpal sword...), and I really dislike that. And again, as a player and a DM, I find that critical fumbles produce more interesting situations (dropped weapon, players falling down, etc.) than merely multiplying the damage dice every once and a while.

The bad thing of course is that they do make setting the challenge level harder. Your worthy villain can stumble and fall over comicly after his monologue. Your PCs can get in a fight that should be easy, then suddenly fall over, stun themselves, and send there magic weapon skittering over the cliff. I personally try to make the most of it. What kind of action adventure movie is it, if the hero (or villain?) is never placed in comicly dangerous situations?

 

[ronin]

I think my players like them because it gives them a chance to screw up or make a mistake. The other players seem to be more interested in how much the fumbling PC messes up more than the DM most times.

I think players really enjoy hard fought battles and having their backs against the ropes-

AS LONG AS THEY SURVIVE THE ENCOUNTER.

Then it makes the stories they tell about their characters all the sweeter.

Edit: when characters start dying players don't seem to have as much fun for some reason.

 

[T. Foster]

Despite my previous post, I've rarely/never actually used critical hits or fumbles in my own D&D games (though some DMs I played with did) -- 10% chance of a crit or fumble is too often, the alternative (adding additional rolls to confirm) is too cumbersome, plus Gygax railed the entire concept in the 1E DMG and I figured (rightly or wrongly) that he knew better than me.

I did however use (and like) critical hits and fumbles in RuneQuest, where they're based on skill (lower-skilled are more likely to fumble and less likely to crit, higher-skilled folks the reverse), occur less often (roughly 5% of the time, instead of 10%), and the fumble tables are more sensible than a lot of the house-rule D&D tables (most fumbles result in losing the next attack or at worst a dropped or broken weapon -- in all our years of playing RQ I'm pretty sure I never saw a single PC and only 1 or 2 monsters actually roll one of the really dramatic fumbles and chop their own arm or leg off or accidentally kill a friend). I liked the crits and fumbles in RQ both because it added to the sense of "realism," emphasized the unpredicatbility and danger of combat, and also because it helped draw a distinction between the experts from the mooks -- a swordmaster with 120% skill crits on 01-06 and only fumbles on 00, whereas the mooks with 30% skill only crit on 01-02 and fumble on 97-00 -- which is a more important consideration in a game without D&D's dramatic power-curve of hp, AC, and THAC0/BAB progression.

 

[Tewligan]

Dysentery should probably be a threat in every D&D game

Paizo's not putting out a Critical Bowel Movements Deck as a result.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

what's the appeal?

They entertain me. The DM. They annoy the hell out of players if the penalty is minor (throw your sword, stumble, etc.) I like them as long as you can't actually damage valuable equipment or your PC or other PCs.