Why do we need Fumbles?

[RFisher]

I generally don't like critical fumbles or critical hits.

Since I prefer an abstract combat system in which players normally don't explicitly make sunder attacks, a good critical fumble system could bring the breakability of weapons into play. (One of the biggest advantages a sword has over a spear is that a sword is less likely to be broken.) Character skill, however, should be a factor as well. (Better skilled characters should have a lesser chance of their weapon being broken. i.e. They're better at avoiding breakage.)

I like the idea of using a "fumble" to indicate out-of-ammo!

 

[reanjr]

So I saw a thread title in the House Rules on Fumble rules, and it got me thinking. Why do gamers feel the need for "Critical Fumbles" and such in the game?

What value to the story does it add?
What realism does it add?
Does it emulate events in any existing fiction, movies, etc that are worth repeating?

There's numerous scenes in novels and movies where a weapon is dropped, stuck, broken, etc. without any intervention of the opponent. Sometimes people fall or trip in battle. It adds a gnawing worry to the game, a sense that the game isn't a matter of wittling down HPs until someone drops. Sometimes the world itself or fate works against you. It adds value and realism.

It's pretty clear that there are some critical hit examples in fiction and movies. Bard's arrow into Smaug's weak scale, slaying the huge beast is an example, perhaps. Conan probably scores lots of critical hits in his fiction.

Those are just killing blows, not necessarily critical hits. Bard's arrow would be much better represented by a called shot.

But I can only think of one example in fiction, that could be described as a critical fumble. I believe it was "Where the Red Fern Grows" or "Old Yeller" (both were about coon hunting dogs and I was 12 years old...), where the mean guy in the story is chasing our protagonist with a hatchet, and trips, and falls on the blade. His stomach is cut open and he shortly dies.

OK, now I see where you are coming from. Critical fumble does not mean you hit yourself with your weapon. I suppose that is a possibility, but a rare one. I personally think a system of 1=hit self would be pretty bad.

Critical Fumbles often get retold in funny stories about D&D, rather than the epic heroic ones. I'd rather have an epic tale to bore my friends with, than telling the one about the time I rolled a 1 and lopped off my arm with a Great Sword (which I had two hands on).

So you just proved to yourself that they do add something memorable and fun to the game.

I'm not a fan of critical fumbles. Nor of the way they tend to be implemented in house rules.

Just bad rules. The rules depend on what you want them to represent, though. For combat mishaps in general, the KenzerCo rules are my favorite. On a 1, roll a Reflex save. Worse things happen depending on how low the save is. 14 or above avoids any weird effects. Effects include losing next attack, losing next action, falling prone, dropping a weapon, etc.

In the past I have houseruled two different, simpler methods. On a 1, you may provoke an attack of opportunity from your opponent or lose your next action. These were just to spice up the chanciness of combat.

I've never really played in a game that had them, so I'm puzzled by the desire to have them by some players.

But rather then get into mechanics, I'm curious as to what examples in storytelling would make critical fumbles a valuable rule mechanic?

Janx

As I stated earlier, the mechanics define what they represent in story. You have to figure out one or the other first, then work from there. In general, though, it's simply fate causing mishaps and mistakes.

 

[Wombat]

I treat fumbles like criticals, you have to first roll a nat one and then confirm the fumble. I figure if there is a chance for an extra good hit then there should be a chance for an extra bad miss.

Yep, same mechanics for my campaign.

Then again, we are not going for a high-heroic feeling in this campaign, but something a bit more "mundane" (I won't say "realistic").

Then again, in the Fafhrd & Grey Mouser stories there are tales where they suddenly have their feet fall out from under them or weapons go flying, in The Three Musketeers swords break and horses founder at inopportune moments, and in the tale so King Arthur if Lancelot loses a joust, y'gotta know it's a fumble

My feeling is that I dislike having a Critical Success possibility without having a Critical Failure possibility.

Besides, I've seen the silly results far too many times in my youth when I was in the SCA...

 

[Wormwood]

What value to the story does it add?

..aaaaand I lost ya.

I ain't so much interested in telling a story as playing a game. In this game, you rolls the dice, you takes your chances.

This would be much less snarky without the beer.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

The way our group does it, is a 1 is rerolled, and if that roll would have hit, then it's just an auto-miss. If the second roll also misses, then it's a fumble. When one guy DMed, he declared that a fumble meant getting only a partial action next turn. The regular DM has a percentile chart he rolls on, which includes everything from losing actions, to penalties to AC for a round, dropped weapons, losing shoes, and the dreaded 72-74: lose a finger. Losing a finger means -1 to all attack rolls, and I think dex based skill checks until it's regenerated. One session, two people lost fingers in the same fight. When I DM, I use a milder version of the crit chart, since I don't like the idea of a few dice rolls permanently messing with somebody.

I'm all for not including fumbles if you dont want them, but I do think they add something to the game, and it does seem that if there's that chance for awesome success, it's fair that there's a chance for un-awesome failure as well.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, an example from a folk song...

The Rolling of the Stone

And will you come to the rolling of the stone
The tossing of the ball?
Or will you come for to see pretty Suzy,
And dance among them all?

No, will not come to the rolling of the stone,
The tossing of the bowl.
But I will come for to see pretty Suzy,
And dance among them all.

Well, they not danced but a single dance,
Mor than once or twice around,
When the sword that hung by her true loves side,
Gave to him his mortal wound.

Oh, and will you drink from the chalice of the blood,
The white wine and the red?
And who will come for to dance with you Suzy,
When I'm cold and dead?

Well, they picked him up, and they carried him away,
For he was sore distressed,
They carried him, and buried him all in the green wood,
Where he was wont to rest.

Pretty Suzy, she come a wandering by,
A tablet under her arm.
Until she came to her true loves grave,
And she began to charm.

She charmed the leaves from out of the trees,
The birds from out their nests,
She charmed her true love out of his grave,
Till he could no longer rest...

As for "Friendly Fire"...

Polly Vaughn

So come all you young sportsman, that carry a gun
I will have you go home by the light of the sun,
For young Jimmy was a-fowling, was a-fowling alone.
When he shot his own true-love in the rue of a swan.

So the first he went to her and found it was she,
He was shaking and trembling, his eyes scarce could see,
"So now you are dead, love, and your sorrows are o'er;
Fare thee well my dear Polly, l shall see you no more."

Then home went young Jimmy with his dog and his gun,
Saying: "Uncle, dear uncle, have you heard what I've done ?
Cursed be the gunsmith that made me old gun
For I've shot my own true-love in the rue of a swan."

"For she had her apron wrapped around her,
And I took her for a swan,
And my gun didn't miss,
And it was Polly, my own.

Then out come bold uncle with his locks hanging grey,
Saying "Jimmy, dear Jimmy, don't you run away.
Don't you leave your own counterie till the trial comes on,
For you ne'er shall be hanged for the shooting of a swan."

Midnight, in his chamber, Polly Vaughn did appear
Crying: "Jimmy oh Jimmy you have nothing to fear
Stay in your country till your trial comes on
you shall not be convicted for what you have done"

For I had my apron wrapped about me and you took me for a swan
But oh and alas - it was I, Polly Vaughn"
In the midst of his trial Polly Vaughn did appear
Crying: "Uncle dear Uncle Jimmy Randall must be cleared"

The judge and the lawyers stood around in a row
Polly Vaughn in the middle like a fountain of snow
She had her apron wrapped about her and he took her for a swan
Oh and alas, it was she, Polly Vaughn

The Auld Grump

 

[reanjr]

I treat fumbles like criticals, you have to first roll a nat one and then confirm the fumble. I figure if there is a chance for an extra good hit then there should be a chance for an extra bad miss.

How do you confirm? Because confirming by a miss (the analog to critical hit) would be silly, since high AC creatures would cause their opponents to fumble. If you confirm with an additional 1, then it's a 1-in-400 chance for everybody, no matter the skill level or aptitude.

 

[Gez]

What's the problem with high-AC opponents causing you to fumble? AC is super-abstract and can perfectly well include feints and maneuvers that cause you to fumble.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I like fumbles, as if done well they do add more risk, many medevil soilders thought it was luck or fate that led people to die in war, more than skill, skill could help, but not assure victory.

The best system I saw relyed on a ranged attack roll vs AC 15, with a miss confirming the critical. This lowers the chance for fighters, and makes dex more imporant than strength.
It also removes the hit self result as this is the most unlikely where as falling prone, provoking an AoO, having the weapon jarred from your hand, hitting the wrong target, or sustaining minor unrelated injury should be part of the dangers of combat.

 

[RSKennan]

Edit: Never mind... like most things you come up with on the 24th hour awake, this wasn't all that funny.