Why do we need Fumbles?

[Psion]

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?

I don't know if this is "story" value per se, but I find that it adds a bit of emotional tension and excitement.

Does it emulate events in any existing fiction, movies, etc that are worth repeating?

Every swashbuckling movie you have ever seen where the hero drops his sword or similar revolting development.


I should note, looking at your example, that I don't tend to use fubles to the tune of "slip on sword, consult limb loss table at +5". I use the Kalamar DM screen fumbles, which usually just award a lost attack or penaly. But the possibility of much worse keep the players on the edge of their seats.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I play in one game that uses a fumble check. In large combats it is a pain because the results of fumbles are mostly the loss of one attack (the worst I believe is an AoO) so it becomes a matter of trying to remember which of the 30 orcs fumbled that round (our DM rolls '1' a lot) and can';t attack. Maybe the fumble chart is just too boring as I have never been inspired by it to include it in the game I DM.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Every swashbuckling movie you have ever seen where the hero drops his sword or similar revolting development.

I'm familiar with several scenes in which an opponent causes a trip or disarm, and that to me is how it should be. Numerous episodes of Highlander spring to mind, as well as Princess Bride and more aggressive disarm attempts in Empire Strikes Back and ROTJ. Trying to disarm the BBEG's evil artifact sword, active disarm attempts should have a better chance of succeeding than fighting on total defense and waiting for him to fumble.

 

[Janx]

So the conclusions I'm drawing from this are:

there are some scenes, where a slip or dropped weapon can add tension

these scenes can add comic relief (not all combats are dead serious, many Jackie Chan fights are funny)

fumbles that have deadly effects should probably be avoided (particularly self inflicted decapitations)


The mechanic and tables used can impact the value of a fumble system
critical fumbles on attack rolls may be an imperfect mechanic (high level PCs are exposed to them too frequently)

Some of the 3e rules and combat actions may replace some of the fumble-effects. Disarming, tripping, sundering for instance are actions the enemy can take against you already, whereas in the old rules, they weren't.


A couple of thoughts considering the rules (not specific rules, just concepts):

basing critical fumbles on attacks alone has the following faults:
you can only fumble if you make an attack roll
if you have multiple attack rolls, you have more chances to fumble


The "Critical Events" table from the 2e Combat and Tactics (the 2.5 precursor to Skills and Powers) had an interesting take on things. It generated events each round, independently of what the characters were doing. Assuming the table made sense, this seems more "realistic"

A random action list for NPC opponents might be interesting. Given the choice of cool actions, and NPC can take, how often does a DM just slug it out with the PCs. Why not mix it up a bit (and a table might help get the DM out of the rut). For instance (this is just a made up table):

1. Fight Defensively
2. Sunder the enemy's weapon
3. Try to trip the enemy
4. try to disarm the enemy
5. back off to a new position
6. flee
7. Full attack, with 5' step
8. Full Attack, hold ground

Maybe some more entries for Full Attack, so much of the fight consists of attacking, but with chances for the enemy to try some other tactic.

I think part of the goal of fumbles, is to inject events into the game that the PCs must deal with, making it more than just trading blows with the enemy. In which case, there are numerous methods to do this, not just for rolling a 1 on an attack roll.

Good discussion folks. I like how many of you found examples where fumbles occur, and weren't just for comedy.

Janx

 

[cmanos]

I don't need em. Thats why I don't use em

 

[ST]

Don't use them myself. I'm happy to have things go badly for the PCs, but fumbles to me feel like the character spectacularly failing at the one thing they're supposed to be really good at, so I find it deprotagonizing. (We have enough funny stuff happening at the table as the result of explicit PC action, so I don't need randomized comic relief.)

If I did ever use them, I'd explain them as something over which the character had no control, kind of a "bad luck can happen to us all". One example of that might be a highly trained archer fumbling, meaning an innocent bystander steps in front of his target and he has to cancel the shot at the last second.

 

[Ranger Rick]

To all of those who see no need for fumbles or just say "out of ammo", do you roll play or role play?

If you want your character to have all 18s, than I agree fummbles are a waste of time. But if you are trying to make a non heroic character heroic, than fumbles are necessary. They bring in the element of luck and seat of the pants thought.

If your artifact sword falls into a lava flow, are you nothing without it? Is your PC nothing but your actual weapon in hand? I think some of the better stories are written of those that "fumble" and recover, rather than those that have they enemy handed to them on a platter.

 

[Snowy]

thats a rather aggressive post, I think trying to imply that not using fumbles must mean that all the characters in the campaign have extra excessive ability scores far too much money or that they are played by people with no desire to roleplay.


fumbles - originally I wrote " a poorly designed mechanic that doesnt represent very well the results of combat" but decided that a) thats just hyperbole, trying to demean in return and not a sensible comment and b) I can imagine a fumbles mechanic that would be good and add to the game just far far less frequent than most described here, I think it would also need an addition of a roll to succeed in casting a spell (that can then be fumbled) as that also would presumably be equally likely to go wrong as swinging a sword or shootign a bow.

 

[frankthedm]

If you want your character to have all 18s, than I agree fummbles are a waste of time. But if you are trying to make a non heroic character heroic, than fumbles are necessary. They bring in the element of luck and seat of the pants thought.

If your artifact sword falls into a lava flow, are you nothing without it? Is your PC nothing but your actual weapon in hand?

Welcome to wotc's D&D

 

[Crothian]

I think the lack of fumbles is just more along the lines of never having anything bad happen to the characters. They never really fail, they don't have to worry about death or really anything negative happening to them. Its like the coddling of newbies thread we had a few weeks or so back.