Explain the appeal of critical fumbles to me

[Phlebas]

~ 20 years ago i was DM'ing a battle in a tunnel between a low-level axewielding dwarf and a kobold

the kobold was chased into a dead end and turned to fight, the dwarf raised his axe into the air, cried a dwarven battle cry as he charged forward and promptly buried his axe into a support above his head (Rolled 1, failed dex check) the laughing kobold then swung at dwarf who swayed back and then buried his pick in a support (Rolled 1, failed dex check)

round 2: - both kobold and dwarf made strength checks to pull weapon out. both failed

round 3: - Dwarf pulls axe out. Kobold fails to pull axe from wall

round 4: - Dwarf rolls 1 again and slips over in mud, kobold succeeds in pulling axe out,

round 5: - Kobold hits dwarf for 1 hp damage. Dwarf gets to feet covered in mud and annoyed as hell

round 6: - Dwarf rolls 20, kobold dies. Returns to party and says nothing.......

why do i like critical fumbles? - 20 years on and the player involved was telling the story at a BBQ over the summer. without the fumbles it wouldn't have been memorable at all

 

[Numion]

I don't use them - it just doesn't seem to make sense that an experienced fighter would fumble more often than a novice. Also, how would people handle wizards' fumbling?

I'd say it would tilt the power in spellcasters favor, if there's fumbling for fighters but not for wizards (which most people's fumble on '1' would mean).

Rolemaster had some funny fumbles. You could critically fail in meditation - and you could die by popping a vein in your head or something. And that was the system for LotR ..

 

[TheLummox]

My group does it like this:

If you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll, you must immediately make another attack roll with all of the same bonuses. If that would miss, we roll on the good hits and bad misses table from Dragon Compendium. If that second roll would hit, your nat 1 is treated as a normal miss.

I guess more than anything, it's comic relief if it happens. But as stated previously, it can add a lot of drama to an otherwise mundane encounter.

 

[mmadsen]

I don't use them - it just doesn't seem to make sense that an experienced fighter would fumble more often than a novice.

If you roll to confirm a fumble, then experienced fighters don't fumble more often than novices. Not all critical fumble rules are equal.

Also, how would people handle wizards' fumbling?

Hey, what could be more fun than a magical spell gone awry?

Speaking to the larger issue of why anyone would want critical fumbles in their game, in my experience, the best gaming moments come from things going gloriously wrong, not gloriously right. Those are the stories we still talk about.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It adds the idea that no matter how good of a warrior you are, accidents still happen. There are no guarantees in life, after all.

So it's a simulationist thing? Because, as was pointed out, shouldn't mass combat involve 5 percent of each army harming themselves, then?

And what sorts of adventures are you trying to model with this system? I don't recall anything like this happening in any of the Dragonlance novels I've read, to pick a name out of the air.

Plus, it makes the game more balanced. After all, if you get the benefit of a critical hit, then you should also get the detriment of a critical fumble to balance it all out.

Why? This keeps being said like it's self-evident, but as I said in the original post, this isn't an obvious thing to me at all.

Isn't automatically missing on 1, no matter your skill, the opposite of hitting really well?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

- Comedic relief.. one of my favorite characters from ICE Middle Earth was a Dwarven Battleaxe weilding mad man that would, invariably, roll a fumble each combat and uncannily end up with the same result... 'trip over an imaginary deceased turtle and spend two rounds burying it'.... needless to say I had to wax eloquently mid-combat regarding the loss the world had taken as the turtle passed on to the next life, and starting purchasing 'funeral kits' with which to tend proper honors

See, this is a good example to me of why they're a bad idea. I can't think of anything less in keeping with the tone or canon of Middle Earth than a turtle-obsessed dwarf forever letting his guard down in combat because of it.

CAVEAT: I have not read Children of Hurin. There may be several chapters devoted to turtles there.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

why do i like critical fumbles? - 20 years on and the player involved was telling the story at a BBQ over the summer. without the fumbles it wouldn't have been memorable at all

/shrug

When I DM, I describe normal combat that way. See my Story Hour for examples.

 

[billd91]

So it's a simulationist thing? Because, as was pointed out, shouldn't mass combat involve 5 percent of each army harming themselves, then?

Quite frankly, I'd be surprised that an army would have that LOW a rate of self-injury after a major battle. But I think the problem between your expectations here and mine are the severity of the injuries. I would expect plenty of pulled muscles, dropped (and recovered) weapons, broken bow strings, skinned knuckles, nicked fingers, stubbed toes, jammed wrists after recovering from a trip, and so on. And in a more modern setting jammed weapons, burns from handling hot barrels, dropped ammo clips, etc.

I used to use a critical fumble rule in 2nd edition and most of the problems just had to do with broken bow strings, unbalanced characters made a little more vulnerable in melee, dropped weapons, and minor damage due to general mishap rather than fully stabbing yourself. I haven't brought it over to 3E because I first wanted to try the system by the book and now the campaign is so far along I don't want to add more unnecessary house rules.

 

[Dragonhelm]

So it's a simulationist thing? Because, as was pointed out, shouldn't mass combat involve 5 percent of each army harming themselves, then?

I think that's a bit of overexamination. We're not talking about simulationist battles here. We're talking about individual combats, where a small group faces off against another small group.

And what sorts of adventures are you trying to model with this system? I don't recall anything like this happening in any of the Dragonlance novels I've read, to pick a name out of the air.

Funny how those "random" names just pop up.

I'm not trying to make the ultimate Dragonlance experience here. My only goal with critical fumbles is to point out that there is always a chance for failure. Besides, it's fun. You could, for example, be in a battle, and when you swing your sword, the enemy parries so well that he knocks your weapon out of your hand.

Why? This keeps being said like it's self-evident, but as I said in the original post, this isn't an obvious thing to me at all.

Isn't automatically missing on 1, no matter your skill, the opposite of hitting really well?

That's it exactly.


It's just a philosophy on how to tackle battles. The idea is that a 20 equals a good hit and a 1 equals a bad miss. This idea isn't for everyone. It's not about simulation or anything like that. It's about a fun rule and fun times. If the rule isn't fun for you, then don't worry about it.

I suspect that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[Phlebas]

/shrug

When I DM, I describe normal combat that way. See my Story Hour for examples.

but without the critical hits / fumbles it would not have been described that way
and (no offense) but do your players still talk about your combats 20 years on? I can only barely remember the plot, certainly no-one else does, and I was the ref but everyone involved still talks about that encounter.

some people don't like the comic element, & some fumble tables are so dangerous the easiest way to take out the BBEG is to force it to make lots of attacks until it fumbles. Providing the result of a fumble is a minor rather than a major inconvenience I can't see why anyone would have strong opinions on it one way or another.

'trip over an imaginary deceased turtle and spend two rounds burying it' - now that gives fumble tables a bad name

wish i'd thought of it first.....