Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[TerraDave]

I am with Pilgrim: none of this makes a bad game. Combats should be deadly. Fumble rules are fine..

For me the question is: is this enough? and what is missing? Is the problem with combat (which really doesn't sound that different from lots of D&D combat) that it takes too much of the session? Does the DM seem somehow unfair? Does it seem like he is trying to trick you? Are there never any alternatives? Or the critical failures: is it just hp loss, or is there something that really counts? Is rewards the issue? Is it more overall attitude and tone?

If the game was really out of whack with unoptimal characters, you would have had a TPK, or frequently be very close to one.

 

[Systole]

You're not seeing the problem because you enjoy that style of play.

The problem is that the OP (and possibly his group) does not enjoy it and doesn't want to play in that style of game, but that style of game is being ran by a friend so he's not sure how to address the issue.

Pretty much this. I don't mind tough fights myself, but this is absolutely the wrong group for it, and it's beginning to wear on everyone. I also dislike the magnitude of the fumbles, and the idea that the world's best climber has a 5% chance of falling off a stepstool.

 

[Rechan]

I am with Pilgrim: none of this makes a bad game. Combats should be deadly. Fumble rules are fine..

For your group combats should be deadly. For your group fumble rules are fine.

Let's reverse this. What if your DM decided that combats shouldn't be deadly and fumble rules go out, and he made things fairly safe and not random. And probably made things gamist. I'm sure you'd be unhappy with that. Because that's not the type of game you enjoy. And if you came in here and said "I'm not enjoying this, what do I do", someone could easily respond "That's how games should be."

 

[TerraDave]

But that would obviously be boring, unless there were was some other element of risk or failure. (fumble and crit rules are 100% optional, and gamist is fine).

What I can't figure out from the OP is: so what? Have there been a lot of PC deaths? Are they frustrated in doing things? Is that 100% of the game (maybe thats it). There has to be more to this story.

I would say this, with a good DM, PCs will tolerate a lot of things, certainly house rules like fumbles or combats with a lot of HP loss. Thats pretty small beer considering the ways GMs can be annoying. So I would suspect something else.

 

[Rechan]

As far as why I don't walk away: The GM is a friend. He's not a bad guy. And the game he runs is one of the few times I get to see some other friends who are busy a lot of the time.

See if the other players feel this way. If they do, have a talk with the DM. Either as a group or someone does it one-on-one.

It's not unreasonable to give the DM feedback, and if there's a problem, you should tell him. Unhappiness, unattended and not communicated, will fester. He's your friend, he'll care about the enjoyment of his friends.

If you were the DM, how would you prefer your players react to something you were doing that you didn't know they were unhappy about.

 

[billd91]

I am with Pilgrim: none of this makes a bad game. Combats should be deadly. Fumble rules are fine..

It makes a bad game if that's not what the players want to play. And it sounds, from the OP, that's increasingly what is going on.

 

[Pilgrim]

For your group combats should be deadly. For your group fumble rules are fine.

Let's reverse this. What if your DM decided that combats shouldn't be deadly and fumble rules go out, and he made things fairly safe and not random.

Actually, I'd be fine either way. Why? Because it isn't that complex of an issue for me or my group. If we play with crits and fumbles or without, we're having fun either way.

I just don't see the point in getting worked up over something bad happening in a D&D game, once, twice, or a dozen times, that's just part of it.

While I could go on a tirade about how "soft" the game has become due to catering to a certain player base over the last decade or so, this isn't the time or thread to do so.

When all is said an done there are really only three options for something like this, play the game, don't play the game, or talk to the DM and group. Anything else is a waste of time and effort.

 

[Pilgrim]

It makes a bad game if that's not what the players want to play. And it sounds, from the OP, that's increasingly what is going on.

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

 

[Rechan]

It's not about what the players want....ever.

Wow. Just... just wow. I have no words.

 

[Systole]

But that would obviously be boring, unless there were was some other element of risk or failure. (fumble and crit rules are 100% optional, and gamist is fine).

What I can't figure out from the OP is: so what? Have there been a lot of PC deaths? Are they frustrated in doing things? Is that 100% of the game (maybe thats it). There has to be more to this story.

I would say this, with a good DM, PCs will tolerate a lot of things, certainly house rules like fumbles or combats with a lot of HP loss. Thats pretty small beer considering the ways GMs can be annoying. So I would suspect something else.

There are other issues. The challenge level is too high for the quality of the players (who are good people, but not hardcore), and the undergeared-ness is frustrating, especially in light of the challenge level.

But you're correct: those would be tolerable. The big issue is that every combat or skill check is more defined by the 1-in-20 chance of epic, debilitating failure than of regular, everyday success. When I pick up my dice to roll an attack, I'm not thinking, "Oh boy, I get to hit a monster!" I'm thinking "Oh no, let's hope I don't get a teammate killed." I dread reaching for my dice. We all do. Every single roll.

We haven't had party deaths yet, but there is no doubt in my mind a TPK is coming.