TheRPGSite

On paper, I think they look fine (provided the chance is <1%.) In practice, I'm not so sure.

The first time I can recall encountering CF's was probably a house rule in D&D, where a natural 1 meant you hit an ally. For some reason, everyone thought it was amusing.

Later, it was WEG Star Wars 2nd Edition, which completely ruined an RPG masterpiece with it's Wild Die. If you rolled a 1 on the wild die, maybe you subtract the highest die. Or maybe you have a complication. Or maybe it's nothing. It's up to the GM. Which means the game becomes GM Fiat 1/6 of the time.

Next was White Wolf's botch rules. During the 90's, it was a common occurence to have 5 botches in a single session of play. It became so outrageous that our characters started to believe there was an outside force causing all of the bad luck. Yeah, it was a passive-agressive way of telling the GM that the rule sucked.

So, what say you? Are CF's fun? Annoying? Somewhere in-between?

I don't use such things for DnD, as that would mean a critical failure 5% of the time, which is ridiculous.
Well, that's not ENTIRELY true.   If a character is attempting to do something under some dangerous, dodgy, high risk situation, then I'll probably use something like that, but I'll make it up as I go along what the effect is.

Quote from: Aglondir;998632On paper, I think they look fine (provided the chance is <1%.) In practice, I'm not so sure.

The first time I can recall encountering CF's was probably a house rule in D&D, where a natural 1 meant you hit an ally. For some reason, everyone thought it was amusing.

Later, it was WEG Star Wars 2nd Edition, which completely ruined an RPG masterpiece with it's Wild Die. If you rolled a 1 on the wild die, maybe you subtract the highest die. Or maybe you have a complication. Or maybe it's nothing. It's up to the GM. Which means the game becomes GM Fiat 1/6 of the time.

Next was White Wolf's botch rules. During the 90's, it was a common occurence to have 5 botches in a single session of play. It became so outrageous that our characters started to believe there was an outside force causing all of the bad luck. Yeah, it was a passive-agressive way of telling the GM that the rule sucked.

So, what say you? Are CF's fun? Annoying? Somewhere in-between?

It appears that the botch rules are being removed from the latest White Wolf Vampire rules, incidentally. I think the notion of critical failures in any game is to add an extra layer of story opportunity for narrating something extraordinary. It doesn't always work though. I actually like the idea that a 'failure' in itself is bad enough, and effectively a botch in itself. If you attempt to jump out of a burning building, what could actually be worse than failing?

Quote from: Aglondir;998632Later, it was WEG Star Wars 2nd Edition, which completely ruined an RPG masterpiece with it's Wild Die.

So completely and utterly true. The Wild Die was so needless. The other big mistake was expanding the skill list.

I've never been a fan of critical failures or critical hits, for that matter. Although I did like the Quality Results in James Bond 007. I guess I'd rather have a spectrum if we're going to make missing or hitting by a certain amount mean anything special.

Never liked them.  RUNEQUEST is the poster child.

I always found it rather preposterous in games using a 20-sider that someone supposedly trained at a task would have a 5% chance of screwing up so badly. I could maybe see someone who has no clue what they are doing or which end of the gun to point away from himself managing to do that, but nobody with even minimal knowledge of the job at hand blows it badly 5% of the time. Might be funny in Toon, though, for some Wile E. Coyote silliness.

Only my own.

Crit fails are a great way to derail a game, bring everything to a grinding halt, and ruin everyone's fun.

I like fumbles and critical failures. They are the flip side of critical hits. Which I also like. I'm always surprised how much ire they generate from some players. Bunch of fucking self-entitled whiny cry-babies.

Critical fails should only be possible in high stress situations.  And the should be context specific.  Dropped weapon in combat, broken weapon?  Certainly broken bow string.  A snapped lock pick.  If you are running up a ladder breaking a rung would be apropriate.  

The cathulu game we are playing has rules to push a roll, if you fail you get to roll again, but if you fail that its a critial failure and something bad happens, before you decide you are told what a critical fail.means.


So I like having critial fails.  Sometimes. In context. Where appropriate.

Quote from: Headless;998662Critical fails should only be possible in high stress situations.

(emphasis mine)


I'm iffy on criticals in general (good or bad), but I think any fail should essentially be critical in the sense that I think you should only roll the dice if success or failure is meaningful.

My significant issue is simply that it penalizes a corner of character concepts more than another. Weapon-based classes and PCs get screwed more because they roll more d20s during an adventure than spellcasters.

Quote from: Batman;998669My significant issue is simply that it penalizes a corner of character concepts more than another. Weapon-based classes and PCs get screwed more because they roll more d20s during an adventure than spellcasters.

If that's your concern, you could make the critical failures for spells more severe since they will occur less frequently.

On a fumbled attack instead of the character dropping his sword or falling over or whatever, I give the opponent a free attack. Quick and tends to make things more dangerous/unpredictable.

Critical failures should be counterbalanced against critical hits.  For instance, if on a critical hit you use "roll 2d6 for damage, take the highest" then for critical failure it should be something like "roll 2d6 for damage take the lowest."

What I do NOT like is when "Critical Hit, do double damage.  Critical Failure, chance of anything from breaking your weapon to cutting your own head off."

The first time I ever really encountered them was in Rolemaster, where they could literally be fatal.

The thing with critical failures (or fumbles as they are usually called in combat) is that it's going to happen to the PC eventually. And probably a lot. So basically have characters dying not because of poor choices, not because of taking on a challenge in combat that was too tough, but just because of a 1 random roll. I realize this has some appeal to the nihilistic (cough. LotFP where some adventures can destroy the universe on a random roll), but for non-cooler than thou types they just aren't fun.

Quote from: Aglondir;998632On paper, I think they look fine (provided the chance is <1%.) In practice, I'm not so sure.

The first time I can recall encountering CF's was probably a house rule in D&D, where a natural 1 meant you hit an ally. For some reason, everyone thought it was amusing.

Later, it was WEG Star Wars 2nd Edition, which completely ruined an RPG masterpiece with it's Wild Die. If you rolled a 1 on the wild die, maybe you subtract the highest die. Or maybe you have a complication. Or maybe it's nothing. It's up to the GM. Which means the game becomes GM Fiat 1/6 of the time.

Next was White Wolf's botch rules. During the 90's, it was a common occurence to have 5 botches in a single session of play. It became so outrageous that our characters started to believe there was an outside force causing all of the bad luck. Yeah, it was a passive-agressive way of telling the GM that the rule sucked.

So, what say you? Are CF's fun? Annoying? Somewhere in-between?

I think it's important that the mechanics be appropriate. When done well, I like critical failures. I like how they work in TFT and GURPS well enough, though I often do give them some thought and statistical analysis and tinker with them. That is, I like it when the skill of the character and the situation affect how likely they are to happen, they're not common, and the degree and type of severity are appropriate to the situation. I think it is important both that they not happen more often or worse than makes sense unless you want slapstick, and also that they can happen and get more likely and more severe as appropriate if something really likely to mess up is being tried. An expert in good conditions doing a not-so-hard task should almost always succeed and have next-to-zero chance for a mishap. An untrained drunk person trying something dangerous and difficult with bad equipment in bad conditions probably should have a good chance to mess up in a bad way.

In contrast, if the way you characterized the crit rules you mentioned, they all sound pretty bad to me.

1. D20 systems that give a 1 or 20 a critical result mean that something critical will happen 10% of the time, which is really often and not based on skill or circumstances. The Internet is full of jokes about exaggerated rulings for 1d20 criticals, almost all of which seem to belong mainly in Internet jokes or comedic games. Having the result ALWAYS be that you hit an ally is also just nonsense unless you left out some context.

2. 1 in 6 flat chance that the GM makes up what happens sounds pretty silly unless that's REALLY what you want.

3. I can't stand White Wolf games and don't know enough of the context to comment.

Love, love, love both critical success and critical failures.

The D20 does me great. 10% of all rolls result in some gonzo.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998691Critical failures should be counterbalanced against critical hits.  For instance, if on a critical hit you use "roll 2d6 for damage, take the highest" then for critical failure it should be something like "roll 2d6 for damage take the lowest."

What I do NOT like is when "Critical Hit, do double damage.  Critical Failure, chance of anything from breaking your weapon to cutting your own head off."

In BX a 1 was allways a miss and a 20 was allways a hit.

No, I quite like critical failures (fumbles). And critical successes, in both combat and in standard skill use. And I make use of them in just about every campaign I run.

They're enjoyable; they add some unpredictability and some flavor; and they've worked well "in practice". And, would you believe it? They're actually not badwrongfun.

I think if you sub the words "critical misses" with the word "fumble" the concept is clearer. I haven't played all of the games in the OP but I think a 5% chance for something going really wrong for each characters' action in a combat round is reasonable.

 I know the idea is that the characters are professionally trained but so are football players. And on almost every single play, someone gets something wrong. It is just a matter that the single wrong thing does on any play rarely determines the overall end of the game. But they add up. And on some plays you get an actual fumble that can be devastating.

I think DCC gets this most correct with their Crit and fumble charts. Plus you can burn luck to stave off some of the effects but they eventually can catch up to you.

I am currently working on converting that entire DCC system along with magic corruption to 5E.

I'm thinking roll on crit chart and add attack bonus including proficiency bonus for martial classes. Tier the various fighter crit charts to the tiers in D&D 5E.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998691Critical failures should be counterbalanced against critical hits.  For instance, if on a critical hit you use "roll 2d6 for damage, take the highest" then for critical failure it should be something like "roll 2d6 for damage take the lowest."

What I do NOT like is when "Critical Hit, do double damage.  Critical Failure, chance of anything from breaking your weapon to cutting your own head off."

This.  In most systems, I'm happy without either, because people that are bad at math want to make them stronger than is good for the game.  If the effects can be kept down to a low roar, I don't mind a little occasional variety.  I'd rather have something occur 5%, 10%, or even 20% of the time as a slight nudge, than less often but be earth shaking.  Helps people learn the rules around the criticals betters, too.

Love critical failures. I do agree with Old Geezer that they should be counter-balanced to the critical success and the games I've ran usually have them that way.

I like critical successes and failures, preferably the odds of Crit fail would be about 3%, successes can be more likely:).
Of course, you want a GM that doesn't think that a bad roll is a reason to present your character as inept (unless playing Warhammer). But that's a good rule for picking Referees even when you aren't using a system with critical failures;).

Quote from: Aglondir;998632On paper, I think they look fine (provided the chance is <1%.) In practice, I'm not so sure.
...
So, what say you? Are CF's fun? Annoying? Somewhere in-between?

I think there needs to be some sort of capacity for things to go completely off the rails.  Oftentimes, that should be because they royally screwed up (so it was a failure at the decision-making point, not the die roll). However, occasionally IRL something bad happens randomly (or when it finally happens is random) and if you want to emulate that you need it to come out in the die rolls somehow.

It really depends on mechanics of the game. Not just on what dice are used, but when the dice are used. As Batman points out, fighters in D&D roll their attack rolls (and thus are subject to CF), but it usually is the target of spells who roll (saving throws), creating a disparity. Beyond that, the more likely CFs exist in your game, the more incentive you have for making sure that you don't roll the dice. So, for example, if you have the option of sneaking or hiding, and your sneak  mechanic requires you to make a check to successfully stealth about, but your hide mechanic succeeds unless the opponent makes an observation roll, you are going to choose to hide rather than sneak.

WEG SW 2e is a good example of the specific dice mechanic messing with things (as is the Storyteller system, where increased skill means increased dice, meaning you might actually make your CFs worse by being better at doing something).

My current homebrew Mad Max Fury Road-esque system that I developed with my GM runs on a 'super-common-fail' system. Every round, you roll a d10 and one number is your 'cool' # and one is your 'oh shit' number (so 1-in-5 you get a crit, so in general they are not that big of an effect). You can only carry one of each at a time. You can trade in your cool for doing something especially well if you succeed (so like a low-power critical success) and you can burn off your oh shit by turning a regular failure into a delightful catastrophe. If you don't burn off your oh shit and roll another one, then the GM decides what happens, and it won't be pretty.

Quote from: AsenRG;998764I like critical successes and failures, preferably the odds of Crit fail would be about 3%, successes can be more likely:).
Of course, you want a GM that doesn't think that a bad roll is a reason to present your character as inept (unless playing Warhammer). But that's a good rule for picking Referees even when you aren't using a system with critical failures;).

I don't think it should be inept insofar as the ability of the character. If a player is trying to something which they have no/low ability/skill and they critically fail that's different, to me, than if they do something they have some qualification in and fail.

It seems to me that for many types of attempts to do something, if it's reasonable to check for results that could range from great success to great failure, ideally I would want multiple degrees of success to be possible, and for the odds of each type of outcome to be based on skill and conditions. The tricky part, it seems to me, is figuring out how to assign the possible outcomes appropriate odds of happening.

It's especially tricky when different players have quite different ideas about what those appropriate odds should be.

e.g. Some players think Fury Road would be great fun to game out. So do I . . . but I think it would mainly be fun to assign what I think are the actual odds that the crazy stunts would lead to people falling in the dirt.

Quote from: Skarg;9986942. 1 in 6 flat chance that the GM makes up what happens sounds pretty silly unless that's REALLY what you want.

That description is almost as much of a caricature of the intent and actual practice of wild die complications as is saying that games with GM rulings are a random alternation of "mother may I" and "rocks fall and then everyone dies."

Regarding the D20 a 1 is always a critical failure and a 20 a critical success, I'm happier when the % chance for critical success and failure are related to the chance for success and for failure. So, for example, someone with a 40% chance to succeed might have a 2% chance of a critical success and a 3% chance of a critical failure whereas someone with an 80% chance of success might have a 4% chance of a critical success and a 1% chance of a critical failure.

Quote from: Skarg;998771e.g. Some players think Fury Road would be great fun to game out. So do I . . . but I think it would mainly be fun to assign what I think are the actual odds that the crazy stunts would lead to people falling in the dirt.

And then being run over by the next vehicle. That's where the real fun is. :D

I like both critical successes and critical failures.

I have seen them happen in real life often enough to think they should occur in gaming too. They need not all result in damage to a PC either. I have seen plenty of dropped or broken weapons and armour in reenactment combat. Shots that completely miss the target, or misfire, even some that hit square and bounce off for no seeming reason.  I have dropped tools, some times into water. I have had tools break.  All of these I would call "critical failures". Something bad happened beyond simply not accomplishing the task.

I will agree that a one in twenty chance seems high. Although the DCC and MCC tables allow for a wide range of results and do allow character luck to affect the outcome.  They also are less deadly than the old RoleMaster tables...

Quote from: Bren;998774And then being run over by the next vehicle. That's where the real fun is. :D

Yep! I much prefer the Road Warrior (& Raiders of the Lost Ark) chase combats because of all the people trying stuff with a high rate of horrible failure. I was greatly disappointed at how many Fury Road stunts worked out well for the people trying them, despite how crazy most of them seemed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998642Never liked them.  RUNEQUEST is the poster child.

Heh, and I was going to say I liked them... In RuneQuest... Yea, they're crazy wild, and mildly frustrating, but they're just part of the game... If you have some kind of previous experience so PCs are 60% with their primary weapon, it isn't quite so bad (then the fumble chance is only 3%).

The home brew we played in college had them, but they reached a point of being almost impossible to happen for non-beginner characters. Maybe 5% chance for beginners, maybe a .05% (that is 5 in 10,000) for a mid-level fighter, well equipped, and decent stats. Now give that fighter some penalties from wounding, doesn't have his magic sword, and has a hostile spell cast on him, and he's back to a 5% chance of fumble.

In D&D, I'd rather not have crits and fumbles, though still have a "1" is an automatic miss and maybe a "20" is an automatic hit.

Frank

Used to use them a lot in 4e with a Pathfinder Critical Fumble deck, then I stopped when I realized that in 5e, the Fighter gets progressively more and more screwed as he levels up.

I like them.  It's always great to hear player's cheer when they get a critical success (whether a natural 20 or getting a red FEAT in FASERIP) or let out a long "FFFUUUUCCKKK!!!" when they beef a roll and get a 1.  

I like the way criticals and fumbles are done in Hackmaster 5th ed.  We just started playing it this week and it's pretty cool.

Yes. I like them. Sometimes the dice Gods demand their sacrifice. Sometimes it's you.

Last game session - at the very end of the game (Beasts and Barbarians) - one of my players, an 7'11" behemoth of a northman, with a d10 Vigor and the Loincloth Hero edge, was burning the body of a guy he'd killed and died of fright. He saw a slimy starfish creature crawl out the ear of the body while in the furnace, it SQUEED!! then died. Another PC quipped "Yeah that's a Fear check."

His stats would have made this trivial. He rolled double 1's (he has to roll over 4 on a d10 or d6). He says fuck it, he'll roll the fear effect. Due to the nature of the situation I said there was a +1 modifier to the roll. He's like "Sure." Natural 20, for a 21. 21+ = heart attack. Everyone is dying laughing. He should normally make this roll to stabilize - he rolls double 1's on a d10 and d6. He blows a benny. Double 1's again. (the laughter mounts). Blows another benny, double-1's AGAIN (laughter morphs into hysterics), he blows his third and last benny... DOUBLE-1's AGAIN. (I'm now choking on my whiskey, and turning purple). I give him a Hail Mary that one of the servants will walk in and find his body within time to call for the healer in the group. I gave him a flat 25% chance. He rolls 98%.

That's the entire pantheon of Fumble Gods working against you.

tenbones brings up a good point.  Sometimes those wild swings can create situations that people will remember for a long time.

That sort of thing works great when done that way.

One of the things Chirine always does in his Braunsteins is what I call "Complicate, don't Terminate."  Tenbones' anecdote is a perfect example of that.  And if that was my PC I'd laugh till I shat myself.

As opposed to "You rolled a 1, roll on this table, you rolled 00, oopsie you cut your own pancreas out.  You're dead."

Tenbones has a great story.  And peoe die for bullshit no good reasons in real life.  But I don't want to play a guy that has a heart attack and dies at a funeral.  I don't want to have a stroke becuase the artery was wrapped around the vein in my brain and one day they rubbed to many times and ruptured (happed to a friend of mine in high school he had brain surgery and survived) and for fucks sake I dob't want to get cancer.

Quote from: tenbones;998800His stats would have made this trivial. He rolled double 1's (he has to roll over 4 on a d10 or d6).

So he rolls 1D10 and 1D6 and he has to roll over 4 on one of the two dice? If so then he has a 27% chance of failure. That's not a trivial chance. He did end up with an impressive string of crappy rolls.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998814As opposed to "You rolled a 1, roll on this table, you rolled 00, oopsie you cut your own pancreas out.  You're dead."

As opposed to say OD&D where you get, "You rolled an 8 on a D20. You're dead."

Quote from: Bren;998835So he rolls 1D10 and 1D6 and he has to roll over 4 on one of the two dice? If so then he has a 27% chance of failure. That's not a trivial chance. He did end up with an impressive string of crappy rolls.

In Savage Worlds - a standard roll has a difficulty of 4. One die is a trait the other is a wild-die. They're not additive - so you take the one that's higher. But if you roll max, the die explodes and you keep rolling. So he had only to roll 4 or higher either die. But because he failed he had to roll a d20 for the results on the Fear Table. Due to the nature of the game, I can assign a penalty to the fear-check. I gave him a +1. He rolled a natural 20 on this table.

1-4 Adrenaline Surge: The hero's "fight"response takes over. He adds +2 to all Trait and damage rolls on his next action.
5-8 Shaken: The character is Shaken.
9-12 Panicked: The character immediately moves his full Pace plus running away from the danger and is Shaken.
13-16 Minor Phobia: The character gains a Minor Phobia Hindrance somehow associated with the trauma.
17-Major Phobia: The character gains a Major Phobia Hindrance.
19-20 The Mark of Fear: The hero is Shaken and also suffers some cosmetic physical alteration-a white streak forms in the hero's hair, his eyes twitch constantly, or some other minor physical alteration. This reduces his Charisma by 1.
21+ Heart Attack: The hero is so overwhelmed with fear that his heart stutters. He becomes Incapacitated and must make a Vigor roll at -2. If successful,
he's Shaken and can't attempt to recover for 1d4 rounds. If he fails, he dies in 2d6 rounds. A Healing roll at -4 saves the victim's life, but he remains Incapacitated

So even then - he rolled horribly to survive. I tell you - it was ordained from on high.

Quote from: Bren;998835As opposed to say OD&D where you get, "You rolled an 8 on a D20. You're dead."

Agreed. In many ways old-school D&D was pretty ruthless.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998691What I do NOT like is when "Critical Hit, do double damage.  Critical Failure, chance of anything from breaking your weapon to cutting your own head off."

My very first Rolemaster character was some kind of lizardman, and he died from a critical fumble in combat.

Bit his own head right the fuck off.

I don't mind consequences for failure, but critical fumble rules invariably turn an adventure into a farce-- I would much rather have reasonable, scaling penalties for failure than a 1% or 5% chance of every action turning my game into a fucking cartoon.

Quote from: tenbones;998800Yes. I like them. Sometimes the dice Gods demand their sacrifice. Sometimes it's you.

Last game session - at the very end of the game (Beasts and Barbarians) - one of my players, an 7'11" behemoth of a northman, with a d10 Vigor and the Loincloth Hero edge, was burning the body of a guy he'd killed and died of fright. He saw a slimy starfish creature crawl out the ear of the body while in the furnace, it SQUEED!! then died. Another PC quipped "Yeah that's a Fear check."

His stats would have made this trivial. He rolled double 1's (he has to roll over 4 on a d10 or d6). He says fuck it, he'll roll the fear effect. Due to the nature of the situation I said there was a +1 modifier to the roll. He's like "Sure." Natural 20, for a 21. 21+ = heart attack. Everyone is dying laughing. He should normally make this roll to stabilize - he rolls double 1's on a d10 and d6. He blows a benny. Double 1's again. (the laughter mounts). Blows another benny, double-1's AGAIN (laughter morphs into hysterics), he blows his third and last benny... DOUBLE-1's AGAIN. (I'm now choking on my whiskey, and turning purple). I give him a Hail Mary that one of the servants will walk in and find his body within time to call for the healer in the group. I gave him a flat 25% chance. He rolls 98%.

That's the entire pantheon of Fumble Gods working against you.

Now that is a story to remember, and why randomness and rolling can make the game so fun

I like them in GURPS, but since in that system roughly half of the results aren't any worse than "you drop your weapon" they don't always turn into a comedy of errors.

It depends on how the game system implements them. If it's like others have said (Psiker, Gronan, Omega), I'm good with them. It it's you accidentally kill yourself or chop off the arm of your fellow soldier next to you, then no.

Critical Fails should never be used in a system that has iterative attacks.

With Metahumans Rising we wanted to incorporate critical failures because it fits the genre. The way we addressed this was by giving the players the option of a critical failure when it was dramatically appropriate. If a player opts for a critical failure the GM does something horrible but the character gain s Willpower which is used to push abilities beyond their normal limits.

Quote from: Psikerlord;998689On a fumbled attack instead of the character dropping his sword or falling over or whatever, I give the opponent a free attack. Quick and tends to make things more dangerous/unpredictable.

Very cool.

So here's where I'm at: I like crit fails, but many games handle them poorly. Here's what I want to see in a CF mechanic:

• Autofails are not the same as CFs. I have no problem with AFs.
• Chance of a CF must be 1% or less, otherwise the game turns into clowntime.
• Either a random table or a GM call is fine.
• A CF should not make the player look foolish. Not: you hit your friends, you hit yourself, you burp during your performance. Instead: your gun jams, your lock pick snaps, the warp core overloads, etc.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;998877I like them in GURPS, but since in that system roughly half of the results aren't any worse than "you drop your weapon" they don't always turn into a comedy of errors.

And the % chance of a CF in Gurps is very low.

Fumble results should be tailored to the situation at hand...and must be vaguely possible. No biting your own head off.

I believe in the Chaos of Combat and Fog of War. Fumbles are the perfect place for bad shit to happen.

Quote from: tenbones;998800Sometimes the dice Gods demand their sacrifice. Sometimes it's you.

So true.

It's always hysterical when player hubris enters the picture.  "Don't worry everybody, I only fail on a 1" is just asking for the Dice Gods to smite you down.

I like them to prevent a player with next to. No chance of succeeding just rolling ad infinitum until he gets his 1-216 success roll.  As long as  they odds of a crit fail scale with the skill level and aren't just flat.  The same goes for crit success.

You have to be very careful with critical failures. First, they need to be much milder than critical hits. Second, they need to run on some kind of spectrum-of-effect, where you have a large number of possibilities that are very very minor, and a tiny amount that could be really bad.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;998877I like them in GURPS, but since in that system roughly half of the results aren't any worse than "you drop your weapon" they don't always turn into a comedy of errors.

Yes, there has to be some reasonable effect, not just a 5% chance of death.


I like critical fails as long as they make sense and don't always equal major problem. It also makes it more interesting if fumble doesn't always equal the same thing. I like the idea of roll for the effect and with most of those effects being fairly benign (lost action, dropped weapon etc) with decreasing odds as the effects get worse. I'm ok with really bad stuff being possible, it should just be very rare.
It seems many games want to make critical fails occur too frequently and have the effects be very bad. I'm fine with minor effects in the 1-5% range, but really bad things should be quite rare.

I particularly like the idea of rolling against skill again, and a success meaning it was just a regular fail, a failure meaning it was a minor fumble and only a second critical failure making it something really bad. That makes a novice far more likely to do something really bad than a skilled person, and a highly skilled person will rarely have even a minor fumble.

Quote from: Aglondir;998632So, what say you? Are CF's fun? Annoying? Somewhere in-between?

I used to use the house rule that a critical miss meant the character missed their next turn. (Insert reason here, dropped weapon, off balance, whatever)
Since then, I think that an automatic miss is enough. Taking an entire turn from the player on a 5% chance is too much. That should (IMO) be reserved for specific effects, like crits.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Here's where I'm at now. This is designed for a D20 game. Should work with OSR, 3.5, 5E, etc.

QuoteOn a natural 1, you have a critical failure. Roll a d6:

1: Weapon break / terminal complication (can't retry)
2 or 3: Weapon damage / major complication (-4 retry)
4, 5, or 6: Weapon drop / minor complication

The first option is in combat (weapon breal, damage, drop.) I wanted to avoid "you lose your next turn", instead you lose a move action (to draw a new weapon or pick up a dropped one.) Also did not want "you hit yourself" or "you hit party member." I don't have a system for weapon damage/breakage yet.

The second option is for a regular skill. A complication is "something went wrong" above and beyond the normal failure results. Example: The starship's jump engines are damaged. You roll Repair and get a 1, then roll a 4. The GM says that the flux capacitor is damaged; luckily you have a spare, but it will take a few rounds to replace. Hopefully the space pirates can't close to firing range in that time. If you had rolled a 1, the engines overheat; it will take days to fix.

Considering something less lethal:

Roll a d10:

1 or 2: Weapon break / terminal complication (can't retry)
2 or 3: Weapon damage / major complication (-4 retry)
4 or 5: Weapon drop / minor complication
6 to 10: Normal failure

I believe this gives each bad option a 1% chance.

Quote from: Aglondir;999914Considering something less lethal:

Roll a d10:

1 or 2: Weapon break / terminal complication (can't retry)
2 or 3: Weapon damage / major complication (-4 retry)
4 or 5: Weapon drop / minor complication
6 to 10: Normal failure

I believe this gives each bad option a 1% chance.

The thing you have to consider is that with d20 games, there are sometimes characters with more than one attack. The more attack actions, the more likely to roll a critical failure. Your 20th level Monk better hope the fight doesn't last more than five rounds. For instance.

# of Att  % roll 1
-------- --------
    1       5%
    2      9.75%
    3     14.26%
    4     18.55%
    5     22.62%
    6     26.49%
    7     30.17%
    8     33.66%

In many iterations of D&D/d20 based games, your melee fighters are going to be punished. This would suck in any of the systems that already favors spellcasters. Of course in any d20/D&D based system which does not use multiple attacks for characters, and everyone has one action per round, then Critical Failures would be fair all around.

Quote from: Krimson;999924Of course in any d20/D&D based system which does not use multiple attacks for characters, and everyone has one action per round, then Critical Failures would be fair all around.

A good point. I was thinking of one action per round.

Like others, I especially loathe crit failures in d20 systems.  It turns it into slapstick in a way I don't appreciate.

In the place of always on crit fails though, I admit to using fail on a 1 for environmental hazards.  Fighting in mud/on a ledge/in a china shop, 1 triggers the obvious negative consequence.  When I remember to I just tell the players up front rather than having it be a mystery.

Quote from: Dave R;999984In the place of always on crit fails though, I admit to using fail on a 1 for environmental hazards.  Fighting in mud/on a ledge/in a china shop, 1 triggers the obvious negative consequence.  When I remember to I just tell the players up front rather than having it be a mystery.

That's what I had in mind with "complications"-- something in the environment goes wrong.  I like your examples of a ledge/mud.

After thinking it over, I need to revise the odds a third time, they are still too high.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999682You have to be very careful with critical failures. First, they need to be much milder than critical hits. Second, they need to run on some kind of spectrum-of-effect, where you have a large number of possibilities that are very very minor, and a tiny amount that could be really bad.

Crit fails have to reflect the situation they occure in. A crit fail while trying to bake a birthday cake might result in possible kitchennfire or food poisoning, but one while working with high explosives can be far worse.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;1000298Crit fails have to reflect the situation they occure in. A crit fail while trying to bake a birthday cake might result in possible kitchennfire or food poisoning, but one while working with high explosives can be far worse.

I think it's also important to have some grasp of statistics. I love critical effects when they're given appropriate chances of occurring, but how many cake-lightings result in a kitchen fire?

Seems to me that would require several confirmation check failures. First-level crit fail cake lighting would be like you tip over one of the candles into the icing, you singe your fingers causing mild embarrassment and brief distraction, or you annoy some people because it takes you a long while to get them all lit, or you let them burn for too long or have to replace a few candles or something. Especially if you're using a crude d20 system that takes no factors into account and just declares a crit fail on any "natural 1".

Similarly, crit fails for explosive yet can be much more dangerous, but what is the life expectancy in terms of number of explosive uses for people with the training of the current character in the current conditions? The chance of blowing himself up should be proportional.

Similar for mountain climbers. Test your rules and take a hard climb that experienced climbers routinely survive, or better yet, what the accidental death rate there is, and try to model and test the odds for your rules, before having your players hit it and saying whoever rolls a 1 falls.

Quote from: Schwartzwald;1000298Crit fails have to reflect the situation they occure in. A crit fail while trying to bake a birthday cake might result in possible kitchennfire or food poisoning, but one while working with high explosives can be far worse.

That's a good example of why I don't care for "critical failures." Unless you're playing an utterly incompetent  buffoon, your chances of making a mistake that would lead to such outcomes should be nil. The only circumstance where I'd go for that would be someone attempting something nearly impossible in the first place and having it blow up in his face.

Quote from: Skarg;1000666I think it's also important to have some grasp of statistics. I love critical effects when they're given appropriate chances of occurring, but how many cake-lightings result in a kitchen fire?

Seems to me that would require several confirmation check failures. First-level crit fail cake lighting would be like you tip over one of the candles into the icing, you singe your fingers causing mild embarrassment and brief distraction, or you annoy some people because it takes you a long while to get them all lit, or you let them burn for too long or have to replace a few candles or something. Especially if you're using a crude d20 system that takes no factors into account and just declares a crit fail on any "natural 1".

Similarly, crit fails for explosive yet can be much more dangerous, but what is the life expectancy in terms of number of explosive uses for people with the training of the current character in the current conditions? The chance of blowing himself up should be proportional.

Similar for mountain climbers. Test your rules and take a hard climb that experienced climbers routinely survive, or better yet, what the accidental death rate there is, and try to model and test the odds for your rules, before having your players hit it and saying whoever rolls a 1 falls.

I think there is also often a tendency to make crit fails be spectacular fails to add excitement rather than more mundane setbacks. Guns jam occasionally (far less often than depicted in most games), but they very rarely have catastrophic failures without a whole chain of failures (poor maintenance, wrong or overloaded ammo etc). Even jams and misfires tend to be due to a mechanical issue that will repeat until repaired (dirty gun, damaged firing pin, bad magazine, worn spring etc) not occur just one time and be good to go.

Taking your mountain climber example, in the real world climbers have safety practices to reduce the effects of a mistake or equipment failure, belay lines, multiple anchor points etc. A critical failure typically involves a fall of a few feet, maybe some scrapes and bruises a particularly bad one might result in a sprained or broken limb. Climbing fatalities generally involve multiple errors, bad equipment, lack of, or improper use of safety gear. They are rarely just a "bad climbing roll".

I suppose it makes it might be seen as less interesting, but really a crit fail while climbing could be handled as you slip, but your safety line catches you. Roll 1d6-2 damage to see how bad it hurt, or maybe they tied the knot wrong / damaged their anchor etc. It appears nothing happened and if they make it to the top without another crit fail no problem. But if they roll another crit fail... not good.  

The real problem with crit fails and to some extent crit successes is I think they are often included to increase the drama or something. It works fine to have stuff like that happen in fiction because the reader / watcher doesn't know what will happen, but the writer does. RPGs generally work differently than fiction.

Yep.

I like using tiers of confirmation checks or other rolls or tables to determine what actually happens, as well as taking into account the involved character's skill and circumstances.

A climber without much skill, training, experience, equipment, or in bad conditions may be in much more danger than a skilled person with equipment taking their time in good conditions. If even the best case had  a 5% chance of falling, there would be very few experienced climbers of high cliffs.

So if you want to use d20 for climbing, ok, but a 1 should just mean the 5% low-end of possible things, which you then need to break down once you get it, and not be tempted by "oh it'll be more fun if he falls to his death" unless you really want that level of chaos. So, roll again to see what sort of thing is going wrong, and then assess the chances of the character being able to do something about that. In a skilled climb with equipment and backup contingencies, the safeguards should all be separate chances. First one is probably you lose hold of something. Second might be do you manage to stop yourself. Third might be whatever you put to keep you from falling. Fourth might be whether someone or something else that is arranged to have a chance to stop you. Each one could have different effects.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1778[/ATTACH]
The wrong way to use " critical" rolls...in my view.

One thing I should say is I hate critical on a d20 system. The lowest you get is a 5% chance. That's pretty common actually . in any significant combat involving several people a critical should occur. First crit success wins/first crit fail loses, that's a lousey system. Unless you make a crit so minor it has very limited effect. At which point why bother?

Now let's look at percentile systems. You can have crits occor on various levels. A barely skilled schmuck might crit on a 00 only. A real expert might crit on 95+ or better.

Also crit fails should be more variable. A barely trained noon should have a much larger crit fail chance than a crit success chance. As his skill goes up these ratios should change.

Chaosium had an outstanding critical system, maybe the best. Gurps had one that was pretty decent too.

A crit should be rare, and not occur in most combats. When it does tho, it should be significant.

I should mention hackstastic had a horrible critical system. I played it once, and in rolled a critical hit that had absolutely no effect on the game at all. Next turn the NPC rolled a critical hit. I was killed.

As I said, I played hackstastic once.