Why do we need Fumbles?

I use them as "out of ammo" for projectile and energy weapons, so that I don't have to keep track of ammo-- and so that you can have the dramatic moments when you run out of ammo at the wrong time, or your gun jams, and such.

I do what many others do, and have critical fumble be a natural 1 followed by a confirmation roll that misses (or otherwise fails). Melee fumbles are typically minor mishaps, such as getting caught off-balance or tangled up in your own movements, effectively ending your round. (Or requiring an action in the next round, such as reloading a ranged weapon.)

I think the most severe I'd ever allow any critical fumble to become would be to trigger an Attack of Opportunity-- making a nice parallel between a ranged fumble and a close-quarters fumble.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If failure in your game isn't occasionally as entertaining as success, then you're really missing out...

And I'll take amusing and funny over boring and epic any day of the week.
 


The problem, I think, with everyone picking these great movie "critical fumbles" as support for critical fumbles in-game is missing a pretty important point:

Movie characters get plot immunity.

The hero losing his sword over the cliff and getting beat to his knees is dramatic, but we know, when the evil warrior turns to laugh at the hero's true love before striking the final blow, that the hero's going to pull a heretofore unknown dagger from his boot and gut the bad guy.

D&D characters don't get plot immunity, and all to often the zany stunt a movie hero would perform to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, in D&D, will provoke an AoO that gets him killed anyway. :)
 

back in 2nd edition Oriental Adventures, I had a Kensai, who became known as the Bane of Lajatangs. It was a weapon, and I broke 10, thats right 10 of them in the first month...you could only break a weapon in this guy's game by rolling 2 1's in a row...
 

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Movie characters get plot immunity.

But this is exactly why RPGs are such a unique entertainment medium. In movies we usually *know* heroes will always win and will triumph in the end - it's ultimately handed to the hero on a silver platter by the writers. But in a good RPG, a heroic end to a tale isn't a given, instead it is achieved/earned. Making the gaming experience all the more satisfying for our participants.

Of course, looking at heores always winning is a little one-sided and we forget about those tragic movies where the hero dies in the end (usually saving others in the process) or our tragic dark-heroes in stories, or perhaps a cautionary tale (Hamlet anyone?) where everyone dies and everyone loses. So no, movie characters do not always win in the end. It's up to the RPG's participants what kind of story they will tell: a tragic-cauitonary tale or an epic-heroic tale.


Patryn of Elvenshae said:
The hero losing his sword over the cliff and getting beat to his knees is dramatic, but we know, when the evil warrior turns to laugh at the hero's true love before striking the final blow, that the hero's going to pull a heretofore unknown dagger from his boot and gut the bad guy.

Right! So we turn to our hero (the player running the character right next to you!) and wait...to see what heroic action he can take to save the day! Sometimes, it turns tragic or a dramatic set-back for our hero. Other times it is a heroic triumph...it is ultimately up to the actions of the PCs! That's what makes playing RPGs so exciting!


Patryn of Elvenshae said:
D&D characters don't get plot immunity, and all to often the zany stunt a movie hero would perform to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, in D&D, will provoke an AoO that gets him killed anyway. :)

It's ultimately up to the players and their characters whether they become heroes or not, no matter what sort of tragic set-backs they may experience. Sure an AoO may get them killed, but it wouldn't be a heroic action if there wasn't any risk.

Keep in mind that the heroic actions a character undertakes are usually ones they are capable of doing. So while the rogue may flip over their opponents and quickdraw a dagger to save the day, the fighter is going to standfast against all odds - holding enemies back while the others have time to get away. So stunts performed by a heroic character are usually the ones they are capable of doing, but then again, aren't those stunts performed by a heroic character that they aren't really capable of doing - truly the most heroic of actions?

Jack (from Big Trouble in Little China) - Who can hit anything to save his life but has a heroic ability to act fast and accurately, as jack would say: "It's all in the reflexes..."
 

Not a fan of them either, esp. since I play a character with a powerful item familiar. One of these nights my sword will slip out of my hand and into the boiling lava. And then I will start to cry.

Seriously, I think it's bad enough when your character is vulnerable to critical hits all the time and your opponent's only some of the time, depending on what you're fighting.
No need to throw in critical fumbles to add insult to injury.
 


Fumbles? We no need no schtinkin' fumbles!

I've never found the comedy aspect of fumbles to outweight the sheer pain in the tuckus. A 5% chance for a possible crit I can handle, the same for a fumble I've never cared for.
 

I personally do not like fumbles and do not use them in games I DM. Now it sounds like many of you have some nice house rules where you have to have more go against you than rolling a 1 on a d20. Unfortunately my exposure has always been roll a 1 and you just fumbled, roll on the chart to see just how bad you fumbled. So my view may just be jaded by the particular fumble rules I have been exposed to.
 

Remove ads

Top