Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[DEFCON 1]

We're basically at a written impasse between Grump, JC and Pilgrim here... where Pilgrim has made a declarative absolute statement that by itself isn't true, but it is when the implied "for my game" is added to it.

Pilgrim's statement is written in such a way that taken as-is... gramatically applies to every game, and every DM, and every player. Which is what Grump has been saying, and which is able to proven absolutely false because it isn't true in his own game.

Pilgrim, however, is coming at it from the direction that because the DM is 'running' the game, that everything happens because the DM allows it to happen. So even if a PC makes a choice or decision... as soon as the DM allows that choice or decision to go through, it's now no longer the PC's choice, but now BECOMES the DM's decision (since he is the one running the game.) And this is why Pilgrim's statement could be considered universally true in his opinion... because he applies this method of thinking about player and DM choice in this specific way. When a DM runs a game, every choice is his choice, even if its just agreeing with what a player puts forth.

So long as Grump or someone else doesn't jive with that semantical argument (and we could probably go on for a long time over it), there will never be agreement.

 

[SolitonMan]

[MENTION=93930]Systole[/MENTION]: a couple of questions, one of which you may have already answered but I wasn't 100% certain I understood:

(1) The description of using skills states: "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." (copied from Using Skills :: d20srd.org). I saw something you mentioned about house rules, but I think it was related to taking 10. Has anyone pointed out to your DM this rule, straight from RAW?

(2) Do the monsters also fumble critically? This wouldn't balance the situation completely on a monster-by-monster basis, but it should be balanced over the life of the game if evenly applied.

 

[Janx]

(2) Do the monsters also fumble critically? This wouldn't balance the situation completely on a monster-by-monster basis, but it should be balanced over the life of the game if evenly applied.

the problem is lifetime of the game is forever for the PCs. a fumble in encounter 1 for a PC still hurts him during encounter 2. Whereas the monster in encounter 2 suffers no ill effect from what happened in the last encounter.

This is what Monte wrote about in the DMG about critical fumbles. In the long run, they hurt a PC more than a monster, given the same odds of rolling one.

Each encounter with different monsters is like a reset. past fumbles for them don't matter.

Whereas each fumble for a PC makes subsequent encounters harder (less HP, side-effects).

I think there's also a line of thinking that Critical Fumbles is not generally accepted good design. Sure some people like them. But they're a minority for a reason.

while players like it when monsters fumble, they don't like it when their PC looks worse than incompentent.

It's like the scene in Ol' Yeller where a kid runs with a hatch, falls and dies on it. BS. The probability of that happenening is slim to none. Sure, a kid could fall and hurt. But a hatchet held in your hand probably won't end up with your arm moving to position it at your belly if you start falling. The blade isn't being held firmly in a blow, so it will more likely turn aside, rather then cut into your stomach.

Yet this is basically a Critical Fumble. You're more likely to shoot an ally with an arrrow in a mixed fight than hit yourself with a blade or hit another.

 

[Rechan]

I've been considering a house rule that rolling a 1 results in combat advantage for a round.

 

[Systole]

(1) The description of using skills states: "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." (copied from Using Skills :: d20srd.org). I saw something you mentioned about house rules, but I think it was related to taking 10. Has anyone pointed out to your DM this rule, straight from RAW?

(2) Do the monsters also fumble critically? This wouldn't balance the situation completely on a monster-by-monster basis, but it should be balanced over the life of the game if evenly applied.

1. He knows it's not RAW. This is his house rule. I brought up the RAW, but he is adamant that fumbles are fun.

2. Yes, they do apply to monsters. It helps less than you'd think.

[MENTION=54846]Rechan[/MENTION] We could probably live with something like that, but the GM considers something as non-epic as Combat Advantage to be boring and unworthy of a natural 1.

 

[Paul_Klein]

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.

Ahahahaa... okay dude, whatever you say.

I know many, many people have already properly reacted to Pilgrim's post (with incredulity at best... revulsion and pity at worst). I just need to as well, because there can never, never be enough people ridiculing opinions such as these.

 

[pemerton]

Every GM knows that the are technically deciding every thing.

This isn't true, technically or otherwise.

Theoretically, it is not true - by the rules (explicit or implicity) players often choose things like class, race, colour of cloak, weapon proficiencies, perhaps starting spells, etc. Not only in "player entitlement" games like 4e but in classic D&D, and many other traditional RPGs also.

Practically, it is not true - at most tables, all sorts of fictional content is being contributed by participants all the time, whether it be words uttered by a PC, or actions taken, or the age of a NPC such as a PC's parent or sibling or cohort.

Pilgrim, however, is coming at it from the direction that because the DM is 'running' the game, that everything happens because the DM allows it to happen. So even if a PC makes a choice or decision... as soon as the DM allows that choice or decision to go through, it's now no longer the PC's choice, but now BECOMES the DM's decision (since he is the one running the game.) And this is why Pilgrim's statement could be considered universally true in his opinion... because he applies this method of thinking about player and DM choice in this specific way. When a DM runs a game, every choice is his choice, even if its just agreeing with what a player puts forth.

So long as Grump or someone else doesn't jive with that semantical argument (and we could probably go on for a long time over it), there will never be agreement.

I think it's more than mere semantics. Even supposing a GM enjoys a veto over other players' attempts to introduce content into the shared fiction, failing to veto something is not the same as authoring or creating it.

And then there is the question of what the GM's veto powers are, and what conditions them. Different games treat this differently in their rules text. To the best of my recollection, for example, there is no text in Classic Traveller that permits the GM to override the players' decision as to which service to try and enlist in when beginning the creation of a PC. And Burning Wheel has express rules about the players having review power over the GM's creation of new monsters or races.

Furthermore, different groups have different ways of approaching these issues in play - different social contracts, to use the standard terminology. These differences aren't merely semantics. They can break up groups and games (as the OP is perhaps, unhappily, in the process of discovering).

 

[Evilhalfling]

I use the HR that fumbles have to be confirmed, and that you can only fumble on the first attack roll of the round.

Fumbles are confirmed by failing a reflex sv DC 12. (with up to a +4 DC for dangerous actions)

This means that fumbles gradually reduce as characters go up in levels.
And that extra attacks gained through skill, do not increase your chances of ing uo. This also keeps a hydra from biting itself every 3 rounds.
A lot of the time people are trying for 14+ on attack rolls, and confirmation by missing gives fumbles x2 the chance on hits.

If you want to make things worse, buy him a deck of fumble cards. It will hasten the coming TPK

--
actual advice: talk to the DM. Since you have, and its failed, start talking about a new game and switch DMs. I have had to do this several times, occasionally booting out a player.

 

[D'karr]

In 4e Dark Sun the weapon breakage rule can come into effect when you roll a natural 1, and the player decides to do a reroll to attempt to hit. At that time the weapon breaks.

In one of our Dark Sun games the DM decided to implement the house rule that every natural 1 caused a weapon breakage, whether the player decided to go for the additional reroll or not.

We ended up with a lot of weapon breaks and no real benefit to the campaign, except that everyone just ended up hoarding every single weapon they could find... In addition our psion never had a problem with it because he had no weapons to break.

That house rule did not last long. The "realism" imposed by the more harsh house rule was not really of any benefit to the game.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

We do the same thing but how it works in our games is if you roll a 1 you then roll again if you get if with your BAB you roll over a 10 your fumble but recover and nothing bad happens. If you fail the roll you either drop your weapon, lose a turn or fall down.

We do this with skills too a natural 20 is a 30 + modifiers a 1 is a -10 plus modifiers.

I brought in something similar in the game I run. If you roll a natural 1 in combat you possibly give up an AoO to those who threaten you. You make a second roll to "confirm" the fumble, much like confirming a critical.

The only difference with this is if the "confirmation" roll hits your opponent's AC then you don't give up an AoO (just like not hitting on the confirmation roll for a crit means that you don't crit).

It has worked well in my campaign that has been running for 3 years now and I think I will keep it for the next one. The good thing about it is that is scales a little bit. Against high AC opponents (which generally means they are a higher CR) you have a greater chance of giving up a AoO, while a 20th level fighter battling goblins would basically have to roll a second 1.

Also, your DM has probably house-ruled this, but skill checks should not fail on a 1 according to the RAW. Attacks and saving throws do, but not skill checks.

Olaf the Stout