Natural 20/1 Crit fails and Crit successes, How do you handle them?

[Lanefan]

Crits and fumbles are fine in principle. In practice, however, having each occur 5% of the time is too frequent meaning confirm rolls of some sort are needed.

I do like the idea that the worst roll you can do always fails (in D&D, a nat 1) and the best roll you can do (in D&D, a nat 20) always succeeds, as it removes certainty.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

There seems to be a divergence between a ttrpg folk tradition of spectacular crits and fumbles and what most actual game designers want to put into actual rules. This is most prominent in 5e D&D, but I'm pretty sure it's true of other games as well (ie: my Daggerheart group definitely makes critical successes a little extra-special good beyond just losing a stress and gaining a hope, as the rules say).

Frankly I think, from a design perspective, it's foolish to thumb your nose at people wanting to take joy in extreme results on their math rocks, it's clearly a strong hook for player engagement and the basis of many people's favorite rpg warstories. The simulationist math nerd in you saying "but 5% odds is too unrealistic" needs to be told that games are games and crits and fumbles are fun.

Now that doesn't mean crits and fumbles should have gamebreaking results. The optimal design is one that both satisfies the player who wants the tables exictment at a crit to be satsified but avoids casually handing out gamebreaking results. Personally for D&D I treat a 1 as about a -5 and a 20 as about a 25 on the die, and narrate accordingly. That doesn't seem to break 5e D&D, mileage in other games will vary.

In many games combat involves a lot of rolls, so a fumble on basic attacks should not generally have extra penalites as that is going to undermine a PC feeling competent in their adventurer (or whatever) vocation. And if some other game has some other sort of roll that is made comparably frequently I would advocate having a muted outcome for fumbles there as well, unless the premise of the game is that the PCs are bumbling idiots.

 

[GMMichael]

Crits and fumbles are fine in principle. In practice, however, having each occur 5% of the time is too frequent meaning confirm rolls of some sort are needed.

I've got it set up so the damage die opposes the protection die (but a successful hit always does damage). So if your d8 bastard sword is trying to pierce a d4 gambeson, you have a 1 in 32 (8 x 4) chance of doing 7 damage (8 - 1). With many of the outcomes being 1 damage, a 7 feels pretty impressive.

What are your house rules for determining the result of a really good roll?

Ask the players. They have good ideas.

 

[Deset Gled]

So in most of my gaming experiences, rolling a Nat 1 was bad and a natural 20 was like double Dmg or something. In my own system, nat 20's are bad, and nat 1's are good, 30's are death and 00's can cost you a limb. What are your house rules for determining the result of a really good roll?

My house rule is that rolling a 2 is an automatic zoink. But double 2s flips that. A natural 4, OTOH, is a quimble that can be saved for later.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

My house rule is that rolling a 2 is an automatic zoink. But double 2s flips that. A natural 4, OTOH, is a quimble that can be saved for later.

Fizbin!

 

[Clint_L]

A nat 20 always succeeds where success is a reasonable option. So, for example, if you say that your black ops specialist is going to perform open heart surgery to save the witness, there is no roll. They just fail.

But assuming success is possible, you not only succeed, but as DM I typically improvise some special flavour, often conferring an advantage. I don't have a hard and fast rule, though; I rely on context and aim for something that is fun and flavourful to add to the narrative.

And it's the reverse for natural 1s. You don't roll unless failure is possible, but if it is and you have a critical failure, then you not only fail, but again I improvise something fun and flavourful, often conferring a disadvantage.

Note that in certain cases, the success or failure is its own reward/punishment. If you could only succeed on a nat 20 and manage to pull one out of your butt, then that is already amazing in the narrative. And if you could only fail on a 1 and get that result, same same.

 

[Clint_L]

Crits and fumbles are fine in principle. In practice, however, having each occur 5% of the time is too frequent meaning confirm rolls of some sort are needed.

I disagree, though I suppose it depends on the system and the table.

In, say, 5e, critical successes/misses on attacks aren't that exciting; they're just more damage or no damage. It's critical successes or failures on abilitiy checks that are exciting, but how many important ability checks do the players make in a typical session? Only a few that really matter, in my experience, so that 5% success/failure rate means that you might only see a really exciting critical success or failure once every few games, on average.

To me, that's rare enough that they don't lose their significance. But I can only speak for my games.