Explain the appeal of critical fumbles to me

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

It depends on how you roll to confirm. If it's just rolling another 1, then skill doesn't really enter into it.

 

[jdrakeh]

I use critical (but not stupid) fumbles because they tend to mechanically simulate dramatic moments in fiction and film during combat, notably the age old 'hero drops a weapon or their weapon breaks' situation (though critical fumbles also work the other way, allowing a hero to put their opponents who have dropped or broken a weapon at an extreme disadvantage).

 

[Nifft]

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

Not quite -- comedy is pervasive, but Twain is specific to Eberron.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

You definitely want a PC's skill to help him avoid a critical fumble. As such, we say a natural "1" is a "crit fumble threat". Roll again to see if you'd hit. Yes? No crit fumble. No? You drop your weapon...and roll again to see if you would have hit. Yes? Fine. No? You provoke AOs from adjacent enemies.

So provoking AOs is the "worst" that happens in our crit fumble table, and only after three successive misses - the first of which must be a natural "1".

You ask - Why?

I ask - Why not?

W.P.

 

[Oryan77]

Well I don't run slapstick games myself. After meeting lots of gamers the last few years, I've been surprised how many DMs run slapstick games. I'm also surprised to hear that people use fumble rules more for slapstick comedy.

It seems I look at fumbling the same way Whizbang. I don't like to think that a perfect swordsman could drop his weapon...even if he slipped or something. To me it's the equivelant of a professional juggler fumbling at a show...and that just I can see the fun in using the rule though. I probably wouldn't have a problem if I was a player in a game that used fumbling. But for the type of game I try to run, it's just not my thing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Schadenfreude.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You ask - Why?

I ask - Why not?

Because it doesn't fit the tone of all games? (Did Boromir accidentally cut his own leg in half?)

Because it doesn't really make sense from a realism standpoint? (See the above mass combat example.)

Because it's another layer of complication to slow down combat in an already slowly resolving game?

 

[Klaus]

I think it's the comic-relief thing.

I think it's this, plus the DM (who chooses to use the rule) wanting to see the players screwing themselves over.

 

[bento]

Considering I have a knack as a GM to throw my share of "1's, I'm looking forward to the Critical Fumble Deck. My players love the heck out of the CHD, so the CFD sounds like fair play.

 

[The Lemon Merchant]

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?

Funny you should mention Dysentery, it actually did play a role at my last table. Well, more of an off-stage role. Whenever a player couldn't make the game, that particular character came down with a case of Dysentery and was out of action and don't even get me started about Dire Dysentery.

Okay, sophmoric humor at best.

As for fumbles, well humor probably plays some part in my use of them. I also agree with what others have said about a good needing a bad, balancing the equation, I suppose. They certainly aren't for everyone, but they amuse me and as the GM I use them.