Why do we need Fumbles?

[Barak]

I don't really like the "out of ammo" situation. It removes the need for characters to prepare, and it can be pretty stupid if it happens to early.

"What do you mean, I don't have any arrows? I'm a deepwood sniper, and we -just- left the city, but I didn't think of buying any arrows?"

 

[the Jester]

In a nutshell, this is how we do fumbles to avoid the '5% of the time you fumble' rule.

We use exploding dice, so if you roll a 1, you roll again and subtract it from your bonus. If you subsequently roll a 20 you roll and subtract again. If your total adjusted roll is 0 or less you fumble; so (for example), I make an attack at +13 total but I roll a 1. Crap. I roll again (the exploding die), and if I roll a 10 my overall roll is a 3- no fumble. On the other hand, if I roll a 16 when I roll to explode, my total is a -3, which is a fumble. Depending on how low your overall roll is, your fumble severity varies (to get the worst severity, you must roll worse than -20).

One thing that has been pointed out as a problem with my system is that iterative attacks are more likely to fumble, so a character who is a really good fighter is also more likely to fumble. I'm not quite sure how to address it, and I agree it's problematic; it's a step back towards the 5% fumble rule.

Nonetheless, my group finds fumbles fun (I think) and overall agrees that having them is more realistic than not having them.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Fumbles are an expectation, the rare chance that something can go wrong. It is a form of check and balance that no matter how good you are, something can still screw up.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I don't really like the "out of ammo" situation. It removes the need for characters to prepare, and it can be pretty stupid if it happens to early.

"What do you mean, I don't have any arrows? I'm a deepwood sniper, and we -just- left the city, but I didn't think of buying any arrows?"

In my games, ranged weapons are far more common than melee, since I tend towards modern and futuristic games, where a clip or battery running dry makes a little more sense.

As for how it happens "too soon", it's assumed that characters are firing more often than they're rolling attacks-- which means they have Spaghetti Western-style guns with seemingly endless ammunition... until they suddenly need to reload.

In a more traditional fantasy game, I agree this would be silly. It'd also be more serious in effect, since reloading a pistol is a move-action, and reloading a quiver is a trip back to town.

 

[Particle_Man]

I run a heroic King Arthur campaign with no fumbles. I play in a campaign with a fumble where a 1 is a "threat" and then you roll again, with a low result being bad (I don't know the mechanics exactly, as the Dm determines what happens).

I can say that I hate fumbles, and would willingly give up all chances at a critical hit if it meant giving up fumbles.

 

[darktalon]

I like the way Spycraft handles criticals. A critical success is obtained by rolling in the critical threat range and the player spending an action die, and a fumble by rolling in a different range and the Game Control (GM) spending dice. The more dice he spends, the worse the fumble. The intention is that fumbles should only happen when it's dramatically appropriate or otherwise adds to the game experience. There's potential for abuse if you've got a bad GM, but that's true of any rules requiring GM intervention really.

 

[Ravellion]

Noone here does fumbles by DM fiat? I do. Sometimes a 1 is just a 1. But when I think it would be fun or exciting for a character to do something wrong entirely, I'll put my thinking cap on and think of a suitable and amusing result.

Rav

 

[darktalon]

Noone here does fumbles by DM fiat? I do. Sometimes a 1 is just a 1. But when I think it would be fun or exciting for a character to do something wrong entirely, I'll put my thinking cap on and think of a suitable and amusing result.

The Spycraft approach I described is in effect a codified version of this. The players have action dice that can modify the flow of the game in various ways, but unlike many games with a drama mechanic the GM does as well.

 

[Davelozzi]

I like fumbles, I think they can definately add fun to the game, as long as they're not overused. Whether or not they appear in movies or books is irrelevant to me, I'm not trying to simulate either one when I play D&D.

 

[Mixmaster]

I love them. Reason: Comic Relief/Laughs

Also: I get to use that d30 I have. The group calls it "The Die of Shame"