I think subjectively it might feel similar, but if a critical hit is essentially more damage, or bypassing armor, or bypassing stamina and going straight to lifeblood (or however it is described), then it will probably be more accepted.

Where I think critical fumbles are really bad, is if you are doing something like rolling to forage for food, and you fumble, so now your character shit his pants. You're forced to come up with something bad happening, even if it doesn't further the story in any way.

If the critical fumble on a defense roll means your character loses an eye, I think that does contribute to the story. Your character then looks like a grizzled veteran. And you could say that missing eye helps with intimidation rolls, while hindering in some other areas.

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 08:26:27 AMWhere I think critical fumbles are really bad, is if you are doing something like rolling to forage for food, and you fumble, so now your character shit his pants. You're forced to come up with something bad happening, even if it doesn't further the story in any way.

I think that could make an interesting product, critical and fumble tables for each skill with perhaps additional tables for environmental.

I use critical fumbles, but they are not as frequent or as severe as the corresponding critical hits.  Nothing says that they must be symmetrical after all.

For example, I have pretty nasty falling rules, mitigated somewhat by what is essentially a double "save" mechanic--one chance to alertly get out of trouble and another last ditch to grab/leap and be left hanging but not falling.  You get a critical failure on that first one, you don't even get to attempt the last one. That's bad enough without tacking on extra damage or whatever.

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 08:26:27 AMI think subjectively it might feel similar, but if a critical hit is essentially more damage, or bypassing armor, or bypassing stamina and going straight to lifeblood (or however it is described), then it will probably be more accepted.

Where I think critical fumbles are really bad, is if you are doing something like rolling to forage for food, and you fumble, so now your character shit his pants. You're forced to come up with something bad happening, even if it doesn't further the story in any way.

If the critical fumble on a defense roll means your character loses an eye, I think that does contribute to the story. Your character then looks like a grizzled veteran. And you could say that missing eye helps with intimidation rolls, while hindering in some other areas.

I'm hoping that players will mentally be able to separate the two knowing that if they roll really low and suffer an injury that it's not that their character fumbled in theory (though in actuality they, as the player, did) but rather that the enemy hit them quite hard.  I am considering having some sort of fail and fail with a consequence roll on other things (whether a full on fumble or just PF2e style crit fail) but am conscious of how that might be perceived so I'm not set on it due to the sentiment.

I don't mind critical failures, but critical fumbles tend to be ridiculous things that simply aren't in anyway probable (like shitting your pants on a crit-fail weapon attack). If critical success is the best PROBABLE outcome (not POSSIBLE, since a crit success isn't convincing the king to give you his throne), then a critical failure that results in the worst PROBABLE outcome seems fair. Like in PF2e, a crit fail tends to be bad, but not ridiculously improbable.

I just figured pooping the pants was just a joke and not real and haven't seen anything remotely as ridiculous in an actual game.   Dropping or breaking a weapon, putting yourself in a worse position (whether granting advantage/reroll/bonus to an enemy's next hit or making you prone for an athletics/acrobatics check for example), or other similar things tend to be things that I've used and seen over the years.

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 05:27:27 AMCritical fumbles. For whatever reason, people think they're necessary to have in a game. And they get forced in.

Critical hits make the game more fun. I've never once seen a critical fumble contribute positively to any gaming experience. 

Fortunately they're pretty easy to ignore. It's rare that it's integral to the system.

I don't have strong feeling on critical fails one way or another, but they have definitely positively impacted play on occasion when we've used them.  They add a bit of tension, excitement, and sometimes humor.  I've only used them for weapon attacks, and when I do my typical chart looks something like this on a d10.
1-5  No effect
6-7 Lose next action
8 Drop/throw weapon
9 Damage closest friend
0 Damage self

I don't like systems where failures are devastating.  Frex, a friend just told me about a Shadowdark game he was in where he was playing a first level caster of some sort.  He failed the roll on a detect magic and the result killed his character.  That just seems kind of dumb

Quote from: Mishihari on May 06, 2025, 03:18:19 PM

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 05:27:27 AMCritical fumbles. For whatever reason, people think they're necessary to have in a game. And they get forced in.

Critical hits make the game more fun. I've never once seen a critical fumble contribute positively to any gaming experience. 

Fortunately they're pretty easy to ignore. It's rare that it's integral to the system.

I don't have strong feeling on critical fails one way or another, but they have definitely positively impacted play on occasion when we've used them.  They add a bit of tension, excitement, and sometimes humor.  I've only used them for weapon attacks, and when I do my typical chart looks something like this on a d10.
1-5  No effect
6-7 Lose next action
8 Drop/throw weapon
9 Damage closest friend
0 Damage self

I don't like systems where failures are devastating.  Frex, a friend just told me about a Shadowdark game he was in where he was playing a first level caster of some sort.  He failed the roll on a detect magic and the result killed his character.  That just seems kind of dumb

If playing on a grid of 5' squares, a reasonable melee fumble might allow your opponent to shift you 5' to another unoccupied square. Bad positioning should be a real issue in a melee.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2025, 09:22:47 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on May 06, 2025, 03:18:19 PM

Quote from: migo on May 06, 2025, 05:27:27 AMCritical fumbles. For whatever reason, people think they're necessary to have in a game. And they get forced in.

Critical hits make the game more fun. I've never once seen a critical fumble contribute positively to any gaming experience. 

Fortunately they're pretty easy to ignore. It's rare that it's integral to the system.

I don't have strong feeling on critical fails one way or another, but they have definitely positively impacted play on occasion when we've used them.  They add a bit of tension, excitement, and sometimes humor.  I've only used them for weapon attacks, and when I do my typical chart looks something like this on a d10.
1-5  No effect
6-7 Lose next action
8 Drop/throw weapon
9 Damage closest friend
0 Damage self

I don't like systems where failures are devastating.  Frex, a friend just told me about a Shadowdark game he was in where he was playing a first level caster of some sort.  He failed the roll on a detect magic and the result killed his character.  That just seems kind of dumb

If playing on a grid of 5' squares, a reasonable melee fumble might allow your opponent to shift you 5' to another unoccupied square. Bad positioning should be a real issue in a melee.

That's a clever idea.  I'll add that to my table the next time Inm use it

What do you think about letting players decide their own fumbles?   I used something  like that during my 3.x campaign on nat 1s and it seemed to work ok.  The only stipulation I had was that the player couldn't reuse the same one in a session and I had a list of general suggestions they could choose from or come up with something more unique to what they were actually doing when fumbling.

For those who don't like fumbles, would adding player agency to the mechanic make it less onerous for you?

Not THAT long ago (I mean 11 years isn't that long, right?) I ran a MERP campaign as an homage to the old ones we used to play and yeah...crits are hilarious and interesting if done properly. One of the PCs got his hand chopped off by a goblin and it was probably the funniest thing possible given the context of that encounter. He was the only Man in the party (three dwarves and a silvan elf the others) and kept being super racist towards the PCs and saying they would be worthless in a real fight. So they finally get into a scrap and the hand gets cut off before dispatching ONE goblin. For all the smacktalk, dude gets a major injury in the very first encounter. Everyone laughed their assess off about that. The interesting part is that due to how "magic" items gained power in my vision of Middle-Earth, the shortsword the goblin used was now +25 vs. Men which made it fairly useful for anyone trying to kill Men.

Fumbles are also fun if done right, although I have seen MERP PCs kill themselves from a series of unfortunate rolls which really sucks so I am not too keen on those. Getting your head crushed because you couldn't make a maneuver roll takes all the wind out of a game instantly.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2025, 09:22:47 PMIf playing on a grid of 5' squares, a reasonable melee fumble might allow your opponent to shift you 5' to another unoccupied square. Bad positioning should be a real issue in a melee.

Since so many fights are underground you might consider having the fumbler hit the wall or ceiling which could result in a damaged weapon, a weapon that does reduced damage until tended to, or that could cause a pillar to shatter or bookshelves to fall over, or the roof to collapse depending upon if the wall is soil, sandstone, or whatever.
Basically use the fumble to change the battlefield or make it more cinematic as they do in action movies.

Long action/slow action.

Asking the player what happens.

Quote from: Spooky on May 08, 2025, 05:45:12 AMLong action/slow action.

Asking the player what happens.

Could you describe what that means?  I'm unfamiliar with it.

Quote from: RNGm on May 09, 2025, 07:52:58 PM

Quote from: Spooky on May 08, 2025, 05:45:12 AMLong action/slow action.

Asking the player what happens.

Could you describe what that means?  I'm unfamiliar with it.

Long action/slow action was in that Eurogame called Forbidden Lands. I didn't understand it either, it was dumb and didn't make any sense to me.

Also lazy GMs ask a player what happens.