Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[Elf Witch]

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

It is a house rule. We like the idea if you a roll a 20 you get a 30 + modifier when that happens you really know something good or you just did something awesome.

But we also like the opposite of that roll a 1 and you get a -10. There are times you should fumble. Everybody fumbles now and then.

It stops something that happens in higher levels with max out skills which is at that point there is never a possibility of ever failing. Which we find boring.

 

[an_idol_mind]

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.

Maybe a compromise could be that only the first roll of a round counts as a possible fumble? That would at least reduce the chances of a fighter rolling multiple botches with his iterative attacks, for example.

Taking baby steps might be a good way to reach a compromise. If he can scale things back a little bit at a time, then you guys can eventually find a middle ground that works well for all of you.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

It is a house rule. We like the idea if you a roll a 20 you get a 30 + modifier when that happens you really know something good or you just did something awesome.

But we also like the opposite of that roll a 1 and you get a -10. There are times you should fumble. Everybody fumbles now and then.

It stops something that happens in higher levels with max out skills which is at that point there is never a possibility of ever failing. Which we find boring.

I don't mind the house rule you have come up with. It also lets people have a go at succeeding on something that they might normally not have any chance at.

In my current campaign the PC's are at 17th-18th level and many skill checks are just auto successes for them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but some risk might be nice. I imagine some things would still succeed, even with the -10 on the roll of a 1.

Olaf the Stout

Edit: Oh, and when I was saying in my previous post where I quoted you that it is probably a house rule, I was actually referring to the OP. Reading my post now it is not clear at all that is what I meant.

 

[Hussar]

Of course, there's always the idea of exploding dice. I love exploding dice. Back in 2e, we used to rule that rolling a 20 granted you an additional attack vs the same target. Keep rolling 20's and you kept getting more attacks.

Rolling 1's was never a big deal for us. Too punishing to the PC's.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

You should punch your DM in the liver. They hate that.

 

[TrickyUK]

I don't post often, but I have to say that Pilgrim's original statement came across as blunt and harsh. I consider gaming as a social activity and everyone at the table is a 'player', whether DM/GM or PC and entitled to make input into the game and should have fun.

Reading further, I can accept that Pilgrim's statement can be put into context, suggesting that there is an element of illusion on part of the players actually making any decisions as the DM/GM is the one that has the final say in the running of the game.

However, I still feel that making a statement so boldly came across as arrogant and dismissive of the other players.

When I'm planning a campaign I lay down my expectations - what rules/races/classes/etc. are being used and a rough overview of where I'm planning to take the campaign. If nobody's interested, then no game. If some are interested, then I find out what is liked/disliked and consider whether to change my original plan. If we can't agree, no game. It's more important that we play a game where we all have fun and this has caused periods where we don't get together while we think what we all want to do.

In Pilgrim's case it seems that he has managed to run games with groups of people that like his style and content, and has always been able to find enough people of a like mind. In some places, finding players is not so easy and so such blunt statements would not be productive. Also gaming with friends where the friendship is more important than the sharing of a hobby can create awkward moments.

I have run most of the games I've been involved in and I've run games for friends and at FLGS.

I know my friends and have a decent idea of what they want to do and enjoy discussing with them how certain games can develop - for this reason, I get asked to run games and pretty much am allowed to run how I want (but this is tempered by my wanting being influenced on their preferences).

With FLGS, it's more of this is what I'm planning and I hope you like it. If not, let me know and I'll consider making changes. As I don't the group as well, there is a level of tact and diplomacy required at times to keep such games healthy.

It feels more like a business arrangement: This is what I'm offering, take it or leave it (if you take, I'll assume it's because you believe it will be fun).

I prefer more of social arrangement: We are all here to have fun and so we will agree on what would be fun and then proceed.

For me, being the GM/DM is a privilege and I humbly accept the position and the responsibility it has in keeping the whole group having fun (not that the whole doesn't share such responsibilty to a degree) even if that means that I don't get my own way all the time.

 

[Squire James]

I had a similar DM at one time - he was a real rat about things like not mentioning treasure unless we specifically searched for it. "Well, the dragon was sitting on a big pile of gold, but you went on without actually specifying you were looking for treasure. Oh, by the way, you left your bow back there too, since you never said you picked it up after the fight." This was REAL conversation in that game!

I essentially told him that, since my character never indicated that he "went to the bathroom" since the start of gameplay, that his bladder burst and he died. Then I created another character in "Paranoia mode" - not caring if he lived or died. That was a bit more fun.