Have Critical Failures that hurt you ever been an official rule.

[Moon_Goddess]

Thank you everyone.

I didn't really think there ever was one, and I really don't plan on fighting them over it, I just didn't want to personally feel like I was an idiot for saying it never was when I didn't know for sure.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't doubt they exist somewhere, but I've yet to see a fumble rule in any system that didn't make me roll my eyes. In any case, fumble rules strike me as a solution in search of a problem. What is the value of having them?

In systems where I feel they're done well, I'd say having a system which allows criticals (whether being success of failure) allow for edge cases to exist in the game. While it is unlikely for someone to fall several thousand feet and survive with minimal injuries, it has happened. Likewise, on occasion, David might manage to sling a stone so perfectly that it fells Goliath in one shot. These are things which are outside of what is expected, but not entirely outside of what is possible. It allows for the occasional spark of surprise and unlikely turn of event. I see that as a good thing because reducing the game to results which are entirely predictable -with no room for variance- would be somewhat boring.

It's also worth noting that failure can be just as much of a contribution to story as success. A spectacular success is something fondly remembered, but so too is a spectacular failure which leads to interesting events.

Personally, I like having an element of unpredictability. I feel it adds something to the game by acknowledging the fact that sometimes events are controlled by things which we have no control over. You might have every piece of equipment needed, and prepare for every possible thing you can think of, but that still doesn't guarantee events will play out a certain way. The vast majority of the time, they probably will play out as expected, but there are times when it will not. Fumbles cover those times. The problem as I see it in D&D is that those times -times which should be outliers of chance- become too commonplace; even worse, they become more commonplace as combatants become more skilled and gain more attacks.

 

[Toyon]

Personally I like the idea of a Critical Fail having consequences, just as a Critical Hit does. Sometimes it's damage, sometimes it's going prone, and every once in awhile I like to create complete and utter chaos by pulling out the "Devious Book of Fumbles and Crits" by Unknown Tome. Some very memorable games have come out of that book.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I wouldn't be inclined to add fumbles to a game I ran unless the players had ways to mitigate it. Likewise, I'd want something that was more independent of the D20 so that the players who want to do dozens of strikes don't get so screwed that they don't want to bother anymore.

Maybe if I had done a lot of sessions with some select friends and we all agreed we were okay with those kinds of things.

 

[maybecca]

I've only ever found one critical fumble rule I've liked, and even then I don't use it much.

Basically, on a natural one on a character's primary attack, they can choose to hit anyway at a cost - taking some damage, dropping their weapon as they strike the enemy's armour, falling prone - offered to them by the DM.

 

[nijineko]

I started playing in 2e, I've played a little OD&D but never any 1e, and it's been years and years since I've done any of them so I just don't remember

I have frequently heard as a complaint from my friends about new DND (4e) that it doesn't include this rule, and how "Well that's how it always was" (despite some of them starting in 3.x)

So I'm not really asking was there an optional rule in the book, I'm asking was it every the default rule that rolling a 1 did damage to you, or a miss hit your allies.

yes, there was a rule along those lines. but not usually in combat - the potion miscibility table and the scroll mishap table. though, i've known a few enterprising groups attempt to get lucky by mix-n-chuck potion attacks on bad guys.

i believe that it was from these that the idea of a "critical screw up" was carried into the combat side of things.

 

[Li Shenron]

However, a decent fumble rule CAN'T be based on a random chance per die roll in a system where competent charaters have more die rolls. You'd have to think of a totally different system. Mentally locking yourself into a place where it arbitrarily has to "mirror" the critical rule is a mistake.

Actually, it depends on the critical rules

In 3ed the critical hits required a confirmation roll after the natural 20, and the second roll needed just to hit, so that the better attackers had a higher chance of crit.

If mirroring this for fumbles, so that after a natural 1 you need a confirmation roll that results in fumble only if it misses, you may get the better fighters fumble less often.

 

[maybecca]

If mirroring this for fumbles, so that after a natural 1 you need a confirmation roll that results in fumble only if it misses, you may get the better fighters fumble less often.

They're still testing for it more often. Twice as often, comparing a godlike wizard fumbling with a pointy stick to a max-level fighter with no extra attacks. If they're gaining extra attacks from TWF or something, it gets even worse, and at some number of attacks I can't be bothered to work out they'll probably start to fumble more often.

It just feels really unpleasant to be in that position as a warrior class, compared to classes that aren't even capable of fumbling. Or capable of missing, because their attacks always automatically hit even if they're standing on one leg with both hands tied behind their back in the rain.

Critical fumble rules are almost always terrible and GMs who insist on adding them are bad.

 

[Li Shenron]

They're still testing for it more often.

You can add that you can fumble only 1/round.

You can also add fumble rules to spells and skills to balance the others against the warriors.

In general, fumbles affect the PCs much more than monsters, that is the real issue. However we're talking about gaming groups who want to have fumbles, we're not trying to convince everyone that they should use fumbles in their game, just try to discuss a solution that would reasonably work for those who want them.

 

[Empirate]

The only fumble rules I found to have any value were the ones in Hârnmaster. It's a d% based system, and every roll divisible by 5 (i.e., the x0 and x5 rolls on your d%) is a critical success or failure: if you roll below your skill mastery level (expressed as a percentile), you got a success; if above, a failure. CS and CF (critical success and failure) only add slightly to the overall effect of your action, so normally you only really notice it if an attacker's CS meets a defender's CF. There are other important rolls involved (e.g., hit location, stumble or consciousness roll, etc.), so the outcome of a single skill check rarely does that much on its own. Also, the way they implemented it results in more chance of a CS for very skilled people, and more chance of a CF for poorly trained people. I like.

In D&D, with its swingy base mechanic and very short combats (measured in rounds, that is)? Fumble rules, I hate.