TheRPGSite

So, this came up in a Con game recently.

When you're trying to do something and you roll extremely well (e.g. a critical) do you consider it a bad GM move to penalise the player in some way?
Examples:
1) Trying to knock out a guard in D&D so that you can interrogate him later - roll to hit - a 20! - double damage! And the guard is dead. Not unconscious, but dead.
2) Shooting out a tyre in car chase in Cthulhu so that you can catch the fleeing occupant - roll an 01 - a crit! Tyre blows out, car goes off the road and explodes, killing the driver.
3) Trying to cripple a shuttle full of stormtroopers in Star Wars, roll a double crit, blow the ship up when you were only trying to disable the engines.


I reckon 1 is d*ck move - I literally could not roll better and yet I failed at my reasonable attempt.

2 is ok but only because the GM fumbled the driver's drive auto roll after the blowout.

I was fine with 3 despite my character having a thing about not killing anyone (ex-mandalorian trooper who had reformed and sworn not to kill again). This was because the "failure" was personal (my character had broken his vow), but the mission was successful - keep the stormtroopers away from the rebel base. However, one of my fellow players brought it up because if it had happened to his character, he would not have been happy.

So what do people reckon? Always a bad move, sometimes ok, or nothing wrong at all?

Quote from: spon;10230302) Shooting out a tyre in car chase in Cthulhu so that you can catch the fleeing occupant - roll an 01 - a crit! Tyre blows out, car goes off the road and explodes, killing the driver.

I'm unclear on this one. What did the crit do? You were trying to shoot out a tire, and you shot out the tire. The driver failed to keep the car under control (a separate roll). Where did the existence of rolling an '01' instead of an '05, but still a hit,' come into play?

From a realism standpoint, that the driver is now in charge of a suddenly uncontrollable car is a known factor of shooting a tires/tyres. That's one of the reasons (along with the fact that it's a lot harder to do than tv/movies would have you believe) that police officers don't do so to stop drivers--and instead use those strips which take out all four simultaneously.

For the other two, I generally say that a crit, if I allow one at all, is for being particularly successful at what you are trying to do. So rolling a crit on trying to knock someone out means you knock them out really successfully (quickly, quietly, what-have-you). If there should be a range of results where you accidentally kill them, that should somehow factor into the 'failure' portion of the die roll.

For me this is entirely system-dependent.

In a game with measured success levels, then higher = better, almost always.

But in a game with flat 'crit' and maybe 'fumble' numbers, I see it differently. I'm fine with a 20 followed by high damage roll kill the guy they were trying to capture. They could/should have used a lower damage technique. Likewise I've seen a 1 fumble shoot the ceiling, cause a collapse, and the falling debris take out the guy they were trying to shoot! So, swings & roundabouts. In both my examples though the d20 roll was NOT THE FINAL ROLL - it set things up for further rolls with the unforeseen result.

Seems a bit off there in at least the KO example. Then again in Shadowrun I accidentally killed a target by doing way too well with a stun glove hit.

Id have ruled that the target was now very KOed and will not awaken for a good while. Or if the PC was trying to do it as quietly as possible then definitely no one noticed due to how well the PC pulled it off.

With the car tyre Id say that crit or no the car could have lost control and gone off.

With the engine shot I'd have ruled that the shot was so well placed that either the ship can be repaired easily or that the damage is not easily notable from observation. Depending on what the PC was trying to accomplish.

I prefer not to penalize someone for doing well on a delicate maneuver. But sometimes there will be after effects and/or complications that could careen out of control.

2 is OK, yeah. The other two are not fair at all, IMHO. You're trying to disable the engines and roll really well: that means you managed to hit the precise spot you wanted to and you get what you want. The same with the guard! Otherwise you end up with these 4 leves of success: Fumble, Failure, Success and Critical Fumble. Rolling too well turns into some sort of "wild die" situation where anything goes.

Quote from: spon;1023030So, this came up in a Con game recently.

When you're trying to do something and you roll extremely well (e.g. a critical) do you consider it a bad GM move to penalise the player in some way?
Examples:
1) Trying to knock out a guard in D&D so that you can interrogate him later - roll to hit - a 20! - double damage! And the guard is dead. Not unconscious, but dead.
2) Shooting out a tyre in car chase in Cthulhu so that you can catch the fleeing occupant - roll an 01 - a crit! Tyre blows out, car goes off the road and explodes, killing the driver.
3) Trying to cripple a shuttle full of stormtroopers in Star Wars, roll a double crit, blow the ship up when you were only trying to disable the engines.


I reckon 1 is d*ck move - I literally could not roll better and yet I failed at my reasonable attempt.

2 is ok but only because the GM fumbled the driver's drive auto roll after the blowout.

I was fine with 3 despite my character having a thing about not killing anyone (ex-mandalorian trooper who had reformed and sworn not to kill again). This was because the "failure" was personal (my character had broken his vow), but the mission was successful - keep the stormtroopers away from the rebel base. However, one of my fellow players brought it up because if it had happened to his character, he would not have been happy.

So what do people reckon? Always a bad move, sometimes ok, or nothing wrong at all?

Your examples sound like the typical sloppy GM mistake of rolling without first thinking about what the roll will mean, and applying whatever interpretation first comes to mind (or that they prefer or that seems "more fun" or "more ironic"). Particularly annoying are GMs who think any high or low roll is license to make whatever zany result they feel like happening (especially if it torments the players).

I'd say the result should depend on what the roll is supposed to be about, and whether/how the skill of the character is taken into account or not.

In the games I play, and when I GM (even if I am inventing a mechanic on the spot to resolve some unusual situation), these things are (or should be) considered in advance, or else it creates an ambiguous situation.

When trying to subdue and not kill someone, the GM should know (either because there are well-thought-out, playtested printed rules which say so, or because he thought it through enough in advance) what the results of good or bad crits should be.

If a game system gives increased chances of a  crit for people with higher skill, and the person is trying NOT to kill, then the crit should probably NOT mean they accidentally do lethal damage, because then the more skilled people will be more likely to accidentally kill people when trying not to, which is backwards. Or at least, the _extra_ part of the crit range for skill probably shouldn't mean that. On the other hand, if the game system doesn't adjust the chances of crits for skill, then it might not matter as long as the GM fairly assesses the odds and chooses which roll will mean what before he rolls.

Sometimes when trying to do something like this where there is a usual mechanic for doing something, but you're trying to do it in an unusual way, I will make a competence roll once to see how successful they are at doing the unusual part, and then use the result of that to modify the usual roll or its effects. i.e. first roll to see how well you limit your attack to something non-lethal. If you succeed, then your attack is targeting a safe-ish location and/or is using safe-ish force - roll again to see whether that attack succeeds or not - a crit on the second roll would mean something like the target doesn't see if coming or it's very accurate. But if the first roll to see how well you limit your attack is a failure, then roll a normal full-strength attack, and a crit there would be a normally deadly crit.

Critical success. Not critical destruction.

I think it in terms of a "Critical Advantage" whereby the excellent roll results in something even more advantageous than a regular success. By this metric, when trying to knock out the guard, it's a superior knock-out that doesn't leave a mark and may intimidate the guard into giving away more information during interrogation.

I go along with 2; it was the driver's failure, and the driver's consequence.

3 was poorly thought through.  Unless that chain of events was in the rules, in which case the player should have been informed first.

1 was an out and out dickmunch move.

20 means YOU SUCCEED AS WELL AS IS POSSIBLE, not YOU ENTER WILE E. COYOTE MODE.

I think if you get a crit then it should benefit you more, not less. So for example I would have done something like

1. It's a whisper quiet knock out
2.  tyre blows out and veers into nearby fire hydrant, stopping it quickly but not causing much damage. Guy inside is unhurt.
3. engines are completely shot and cant be repaired, have to be replaced.

Quote from: Psikerlord;10231513. engines are completely shot and cant be repaired, have to be replaced.

Only if that was the intended effect. Otherwise you shoot it so well that it is completely disabled, but when you want to start it up again (to use it to land on Endor next to the shield generator), fixing it is a breeze.

In the webcomic Schlock Mercenary, the mercs ran up against a bounty hunter with a super-intelligent IA super-suit who disabled all of them without firing a shot, and it went something like:
'he disabled all our weapons.'
'how'd he do that?'
'he locked the guns' safeties into the 'engaged' position.'
'our guns don't have safeties.'
'they do now.'
'damn he's good.'
:D

Quote from: spon;1023030So, this came up in a Con game recently.
1) Trying to knock out a guard in D&D so that you can interrogate him later - roll to hit - a 20! - double damage! And the guard is dead. Not unconscious, but dead.

Sometimes you mean to slice the guy just badly enough that he drops out of the fight, but you hit an artery. Shit happens.

If the GM folds the intention into a single roll without being careful not to erase the possibility of some of the original types of possible outcomes, then the intention can have unintended and/or un-understood effects of limiting what's possible.

So if a normal attack can result in:

crit hit: lots of deadly damage
hit: some damage
miss: no damage
crit fail: flub your weapon somehow

And you want to add "hit in just the 'right' way/amount" as the intended desired result, but you don't want to add a roll (or add categories to the one roll or somehow increase the number of types of effect) then you may end up removing one of the other possible results, possibly without meaning to or realizing it.

e.g. a GM might think to make a subdue attack with a usually-deadly weapon:

crit hit: neatly subdue the target
hit: some damage
miss: no damage
crit fail: accidentally crit hit your target

... possibly without realizing that he just made it so he removed the chance of flubbing the attack, and replaced it with another result that takes out an opponent. Trying to be careful not to hurt your foe becomes accidentally a better way to attack people. He may only figure it out after he notices that for a long time the players have been using all subdual attacks even when they just want to kill their foes, and were just executing those who surrendered without torturing them.

No, a good GM adapts and moves on.  The ability to improvise is crucial for the role.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1023237Sometimes you mean to slice the guy just badly enough that he drops out of the fight, but you hit an artery. Shit happens.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's whether one should ever have shit happen because you rolled too well.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1023237Sometimes you mean to slice the guy just badly enough that he drops out of the fight, but you hit an artery. Shit happens.

Seems that is more in line with a fumble roll rather than a critical success roll.

Your DM is a dick. In addition to penalizing you out of some sense of schadenfreude, he or she is playing 'story game' by imposing a desired outcome, independent of the rules. Some people dig it when the DM leads them around on a little leash like this, but I find it obnoxious. What is the point of playing if it devolves to you sitting on your hands while the DM presents a lame puppet show?

Generally, I go with a narrative approach to this - If the PC's intention was to have an effect and rolls a critical then the PC gets the effect, if reasonable. So, disabling a shuttle on a critical is fine, knocking out a guard without killing him is fine, shooting out a tyre to stop a car is fine. Having the driver roll to control the car and fumbling is unfortunate but reasonable, if he hadn't done so the car would probably have stopped safely due to the critical. Saying the guard dies or the shuttle blows up because of a good roll would be fine if the intention had not been to disable but to destroy. The GM was probably unreasonable in 2 out of 3 of the OP's cases.

Quote from: spon;10230302) Shooting out a tyre in car chase in Cthulhu so that you can catch the fleeing occupant - roll an 01 - a crit! Tyre blows out, car goes off the road and explodes, killing the driver.

I'm going to go against the prevailing opinion in here and say it was a dick move. Not because losing the tyre caused the car to leave the road and crash, but explode?

Was the car carrying nitroglycerin? Was someone inside trying to throw out a lit stick of dynamite but dropped it onto the car's floor during the accident? If neithert, how exactly did it "explode" just from hitting something?

It's a Hollywood car.

1) Bad GM. No cookie.

2) Seems like that may be questionable. As another poster pointed out, real cars don't actually explode from swerving off the road. So unless this was an Action Movie Genre style RPG the explosion was almost certainly over the top. In addition, I'd want to know what difference (if any) the critical hit on the tire made to the effect. If the crash was simply the result of the driver losing control well that's a reasonable possible outcome from a sudden tire blowout. But if the GM used the crit hit on the tire to increase the likelihood of the car exploding then no cookie for that GM.

3) Bad GM. No cookie and no Corellian Whiskey for you.

Quote from: Bren;10235372) Seems like that may be questionable. As another poster pointed out, real cars don't actually explode from swerving off the road. So unless this was an Action Movie Genre style RPG the explosion was almost certainly over the top. In addition, I'd want to know what difference (if any) the critical hit on the tire made to the effect. If the crash was simply the result of the driver losing control well that's a reasonable possible outcome from a sudden tire blowout. But if the GM used the crit hit on the tire to increase the likelihood of the car exploding then no cookie for that GM.

Its Call of Cthulhu. Start wondering why it exploded. Then later wish you had not learned why it exploded. :eek:

Let the dice fall where they may.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1023591Let the dice fall where they may.

So, a critical should cause a good effect not a bad one? This was about the interpretation of a good dice roll ...

Quote from: soltakss;1023628So, a critical should cause a good effect not a bad one? This was about the interpretation of a good dice roll ...

A critical should cause the effect described in the rules. If the rules don't reflect the sort of game you want to play, the DM should make their own house rules.

For example, in reality it is not possible to donk someone on the head to knock him out without a risk of death or disabling injury. Once you start squashing the brain around all sorts of nasty shit can happen. In that case, the situation in #1 is fair and reasonable. But if you want your game world to be more Princess Bride than Ironside, or more A-Team than Hurt Locker, then you need rules for just knocking people out. If the game lacks them, write them up. Typically, some players will like some of the house rules and some won't, so the sensible DM adjusts things over time - you can't make every individual happy with every ruling, you just aim to get a consensus/majority sort of thing, and find players who understand it's about compromise.

This back-and-forth of developing house rules is part of any rpg campaign. BUT - the OP describes a con game. That's a one-off, there's no back-and-forth, there's not enough time. So there's more likely to be a mismatch. If you go to a con game, you must be willing to go with the flow and let the dice fall where they may. At a con game, you must compromise more than with a regular game group. If you go to a con game expecting everything to be exactly the way you want it, you don't understand the purpose of cons: to try something different with different people.

Right. But if someones rolling to KO a target then a crit could well mean they do so without risking injury to the subject. Id have said a crit fumble would have been where you screw up and brain them. Otherwise what is rolling a 1? You behead them? Miss?

Its like. "I am trying to screw this bolt in just right" = rolls a 20 and screws it in right through the bulkhead!.

Quote from: Omega;1023671Right. But if someones rolling to KO a target then a crit could well mean they do so without risking injury to the subject.

I don't know which edition of D&D the OP was playing. AD&D1e had "subdual" damage, so you could have a character who never killed anyone, just beat them until they were curled up in a ball on the ground and crying for their mother; but AD&D1e didn't have criticals, so this isn't obviously an option. I don't recall whether other editions of D&D allow subdual damage, but if they don't, that'd be a reasonable house rule for a DM to offer in the following session if it were part of a campaign.

That's why I said: A critical should cause the effect described in the rules.  If the rules don't reflect the sort of game you want to play, the DM should make their own house rules.

But "I meant to knock him out, and whoops I killed him" is a nice complication for the players to deal with, so I don't see what the drama is, except, "things didn't go my way, boohoo."

I think the key issue here is that it these were con games. In an ongoing campaign, the GM can tailor things to player preferences, but in a con game with half a dozen strangers, it's like we tell my son about his dinner, "you get what you get, and you don't get upset." It sounds like the GMs were trying to have BIG DRAMATIC results. I mean, a car exploding is just more fun and dramatic than getting a flat tyre. Again: it's a con game. In a long campaign you can be subtle, in a one-off you want big explosions and shit.

The OP sounds like a compulsive whinger, with those con game sessions I'll bet he didn't even bring and share snacks.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1023703so I don't see what the drama is, except, "things didn't go my way, boohoo." .

The problem is if you tell somebody "you want to roll high to succeed," and then say "Oh, you succeeded so well you fail," you're an assmunching dickweevil.

For me, much depends on the context and the genre.
 
Pulp / Cinematic means everybody gets knocked unconscious when hit by stuff, like wine bottles and flower vases. So I'm cool with that.
AKA, in 7th Sea or Star Wars, its cool to knock out guards with head bonks. In Warhammer? Head bonks cave in skulls.

Tires blown in high speed chases are probably deadly...especially in the pre-seatbelt, pre-airbag era.

Overall, I balance the Law of Unintended Consequences with the assumptions of PC competence.
AKA, the thief going for the knockout might have less of a chance of mishap than the barbarian.

However, there is also the delicious LoLz factor and its siren song.

All three of the OP's descriptions do sound pretty hysterical.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023706The problem is if you tell somebody "you want to roll high to succeed," and then say "Oh, you succeeded so well you fail," you're an assmunching dickweevil.

As I noted, in AD&D1e you'd just say you wanted to do subdual damage, and there are no criticals, so this wouldn't be a problem. In some games there's no subdual damage, so a critical success is splattering his brains across the wall; some games allow no other concept of success than "you kill them all! hahaha!"

But if you're playing something other than AD&D1e, you deserve what you get.

The important takeaway from all this is of course that "Anyone can be a DM and make it fun." :rolleyes:

I'm just wondering what fraction of the people understand what I posted above, since no one commented on it at all, but it seems to me kind of vital to have more than two possible types of results when you're trying to do something like attack someone but not kill them.

I'd hazard a guess to say most of us got it. Fitting gradations of success into a warmer-colder metric when there's really a 'successful hit' level and 'successfully non-lethal' level is hard to fine tune with dice rolls, and can leave out reasonable results, if you are not careful.

Also, in Example 1, "you succeed so well you fail," the OP SPECIFICALLY mentioned D&D.  In fact, all three examples mention specific systems.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1023727As I noted, in AD&D1e you'd just say you wanted to do subdual damage, and there are no criticals, so this wouldn't be a problem. In some games there's no subdual damage, so a critical success is splattering his brains across the wall; some games allow no other concept of success than "you kill them all! hahaha!"

But if you're playing something other than AD&D1e, you deserve what you get.

Couldn't it be the result of a nat 1 instead?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023879Couldn't it be the result of a nat 1 instead?

Its up to the DM to abjugate as it is oft not covered because the designer figured the DM could parse out something as simple as a skill check not getting a critical success that somehow translates into a critical failure.

Quote from: Omega;1023880Its up to the DM to abjugate as it is oft not covered because the designer figured the DM could parse out something as simple as a skill check not getting a critical success that somehow translates into a critical failure.

Pretty much.  A critical success (to me) means you do exactly as you intended.  Anything else is dickery for the sake of being a dick.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023889Pretty much.  A critical success (to me) means you do exactly as you intended.  Anything else is dickery for the sake of being a dick.

Exactamundo.  That's what I meant by "you succeed so well you fail."

Quote from: spon;1023030So, this came up in a Con game recently.

When you're trying to do something and you roll extremely well (e.g. a critical) do you consider it a bad GM move to penalise the player in some way?

Sometimes, yes. Doing something extremely stupid extremely well will only get you screwed for certain.
My favourite example: using Painting to substitute for Forgery in preparing a fake document (painting the signature), and rolling extremely well.
Only problem was that the previous day they had killed the guy whose signature they were using...
I didn't even roll whether the guard would notice it. It was extremely clear whose signature it was.

QuoteExamples:
1) Trying to knock out a guard in D&D so that you can interrogate him later - roll to hit - a 20! - double damage! And the guard is dead. Not unconscious, but dead.

I presume you weren't using subdual damage? Then this is fair play, because you were explicitly going for a lethal attack.
When you hit people with sharp implements, sometimes they die. The better you hit, the more likely this becomes. A crit is a very good hit.
Now, had you critted while dealing subdual damage, or going for a disarm, I'd have ruled differently. But that's a different intention.

Quote2) Shooting out a tyre in car chase in Cthulhu so that you can catch the fleeing occupant - roll an 01 - a crit! Tyre blows out, car goes off the road and explodes, killing the driver.

Shooting at a car's tires means a likelihood to destroy that car. You did it extremely well, and got the result you wanted...though the driver should have gotten a roll.

Quote3) Trying to cripple a shuttle full of stormtroopers in Star Wars, roll a double crit, blow the ship up when you were only trying to disable the engines.

Is that in the rules? Then see above.
If the GM made up the result, then yes, he should have given you more control.

In fact, there's a trend in your questions. Overall, all three are about trying to capture people using lethal weaponry.
Sorry, man, but it just doesn't work all that well! In fact, there's a significant chance of the target dying. So, think of it as a blackjack: you have to roll well enough to hit, but not so well that it would bust the target...

Now, that is system-specific. The (first two of the) above was the result of systems where the dice determine how well-placed, meaning how disabling, a shot is. A critical, in those, is an extra-heavy "Finisher" strike lined up in such a way the target can't avoid it.
Yes, you can kill a man with a "Finisher" strike. That's how they work. And sometimes, in combat, you fire those off even if you didn't mean to, IME.

OTOH, some systems use "conflict resolution" instead of "task resolution", as most do. In those, a good roll should never be penalised, because in them, you state your intention, and the roll determines whether you got your intention - even if the attempt itself had been, say, fumbled.
(Participating in an archery contest with the goal to impress the princess is a classical example of those: Roll Appearance+Archery, a good enough result grants you royal attention...even if the rugged bowman over there actually won the contest).
I don't know which Star Wars you were using, so maybe it was a game with conflict resolution - which would make it a wrong move, yes. But both D&D and CoC feature task resolution - meaning you have to count on the "blackjack", as mentioned before.

Quote from: AsenRG;1023934I presume you weren't using subdual damage? Then this is fair play, because you were explicitly going for a lethal attack.
When you hit people with sharp implements, sometimes they die..

That's jumping to a conclusion.

If he told the referee he's trying to knock the guy out, then subdual damage is implied, and if the referee pretends otherwise, the referee is a buttnugget.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023940That's jumping to a conclusion.

If he told the referee he's trying to knock the guy out, then subdual damage is implied, and if the referee pretends otherwise, the referee is a buttnugget.

I presume it, because I've seen more than one D&D 3.5 player say "just hit him until he gets between 0 and -9 HP, then the Cleric will stabilise him":).
Also, I presume he would have said "I attacked for subdual damage, and the NPC still died";).

Quote from: AsenRG;1023944I presume it, because I've seen more than one D&D 3.5 player say "just hit him until he gets between 0 and -9 HP, then the Cleric will stabilise him":).
Also, I presume he would have said "I attacked for subdual damage, and the NPC still died";).

1)  Any player who tries that kind of crap deserves what he gets, yeah.
2)  Remember, I am the barbarian king of "Just tell me what you want to do, don't worry about the rules."  If the player says "I want to knock him out," it's subdual damage.

Quote from: AsenRG;1023934I presume you weren't using subdual damage? Then this is fair play, because you were explicitly going for a lethal attack.
When you hit people with sharp implements, sometimes they die. The better you hit, the more likely this becomes. A crit is a very good hit.
Now, had you critted while dealing subdual damage, or going for a disarm, I'd have ruled differently. But that's a different intention.

I get this to a point...

Take a system like Chaosium's Ring World where you can have huge skills (800% attack), which mean you have huge chances of critical. Should someone so skilled have no ability to control their lethal fire? It would seem to me that the lower one's skill, the MORE likely one would be to just drop the target rather than place a shot that does just enough (assuming the unskilled guy hits the target at all).

But I think Gronan has a good point. With ANY game system, it's always better to describe what you want to do and have the GM invoke the appropriate mechanics, whether they are old school "task resolution" or "indie" "conflict resolution". But somehow in the middle we got to this state of players stating things and the GM applying the rules like a robot. Heck, some games don't even have subdual damage rules, in those games is it impossible to knock someone out (I've actually seen this happen, sorry, you clocked him and he went down dead). Now yea, there is always a chance of a fumble actually being a solid hit in the wrong place, but that should happen on a fumble not a crit.

On a flip side, I've seen fumble rules be so crazy (and RuneQuest is one of these) that players suddenly realize they should declare the enemy their friends and try and attack their friends because they actually have a better chance of hitting a "friend" with a fumble than connecting with their target... Now I get that there are some folks who are so bad at combat no one wants to stand next to them, but allowing the system to actually make it easier to harm your friends than your enemy is a problem. If you're that bad, what would be better is to have the fumble attack a random person, and maybe assess a penalty to the friends for having to ALSO defend against their clumsy friend in addition to their actual enemy.

Frank

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;10240081)  Any player who tries that kind of crap deserves what he gets, yeah.
2)  Remember, I am the barbarian king of "Just tell me what you want to do, don't worry about the rules."  If the player says "I want to knock him out," it's subdual damage.

1. From my reading of the OP, it just seems that was exactly the case. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance to the OP. (So...did you specify you're going for subdual, OP?)
2. That just doesn't work in 3.5 and later editions, in my limited experience.

Quote from: ffilz;1024018I get this to a point...

Take a system like Chaosium's Ring World where you can have huge skills (800% attack), which mean you have huge chances of critical. Should someone so skilled have no ability to control their lethal fire? It would seem to me that the lower one's skill, the MORE likely one would be to just drop the target rather than place a shot that does just enough (assuming the unskilled guy hits the target at all).

Except we already said it's system-specific. A roll of 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 9, 10 isn't the same in WoD, in ORE and in Legends of the Wulin.

QuoteBut I think Gronan has a good point. With ANY game system, it's always better to describe what you want to do and have the GM invoke the appropriate mechanics, whether they are old school "task resolution" or "indie" "conflict resolution".

Yes.

QuoteBut somehow in the middle we got to this state of players stating things and the GM applying the rules like a robot.

Alas, yes.  If you play in one of those, make sure to apply the rules correctly, or it's nobody else's fault when you get results you didn't desire.

And I suspect that's probably the kind of game the OP is playing in.

QuoteHeck, some games don't even have subdual damage rules, in those games is it impossible to knock someone out (I've actually seen this happen, sorry, you clocked him and he went down dead).

Depends on the Referee, I guess.

QuoteNow yea, there is always a chance of a fumble actually being a solid hit in the wrong place, but that should happen on a fumble not a crit.

A solid hit in the wrong place is what a crit is against an enemy you want to kill.

QuoteOn a flip side, I've seen fumble rules be so crazy (and RuneQuest is one of these) that players suddenly realize they should declare the enemy their friends and try and attack their friends because they actually have a better chance of hitting a "friend" with a fumble than connecting with their target...

Never seen that happening in a Runequest game, is all I'm going to say.

Quote from: AsenRG;10240412. That just doesn't work in 3.5 and later editions, in my limited experience.
.

Actually, that's how the referee is running the Pathfinder game I'm in.  It requires a referee who knows the rules inside and out, a lot of patience, and a good deal of trust.

Quote from: Skarg;1023819I'm just wondering what fraction of the people understand what I posted above, since no one commented on it at all, but it seems to me kind of vital to have more than two possible types of results when you're trying to do something like attack someone but not kill them.

I didn't feel any need to comment on something that was correct and that naturally (and to me obviously) follows from a simple consideration of each of the cases associated with the action being attempted.

Thanks  for the replies,
        I think most people are on the same page here. In the 1st case it was AD&D 1E and I specifically said I was trying to knock out the guard. The only defence I have for the ref is that we weren't particularly experienced (16 years old? 4 years of play?) and the GM loved rolling on the crit tables from Dragon. I was pretty miffed though.

In the CoC case, I don't think the GM was wrong - and he gave the driver a drive check to see how bad the crash was. I'd have done the same thing, I think, I just wanted to throw it out there.

In the Star Wars case, it was pretty much against how the rules should have worked (Heroquest is a Conflict resolution system) but I wasn't too unhappy with how things turned out - it's one of the other players who brought up it when it happened. If it had happened to him, he'd have been unhappy. Just wondered how other people felt.

Cheers,
Spon

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024045Actually, that's how the referee is running the Pathfinder game I'm in.  It requires a referee who knows the rules inside and out, a lot of patience, and a good deal of trust.

OK, then please read my previous post as "I wouldn't have the patience to make it work like that":). We are playing this way, but only when using much lighter and intuitiver systems.

Quote from: spon;1024129Thanks  for the replies,
        I think most people are on the same page here. In the 1st case it was AD&D 1E and I specifically said I was trying to knock out the guard. The only defence I have for the ref is that we weren't particularly experienced (16 years old? 4 years of play?) and the GM loved rolling on the crit tables from Dragon. I was pretty miffed though.

OK, I apologize for the misunderstanding, then! Though I seem to remember there was a steep penalty for dealing subdual damage. Or did you use a more suitable implement?

QuoteIn the CoC case, I don't think the GM was wrong - and he gave the driver a drive check to see how bad the crash was. I'd have done the same thing, I think, I just wanted to throw it out there.

Well, at least I got that one right;).

QuoteIn the Star Wars case, it was pretty much against how the rules should have worked (Heroquest is a Conflict resolution system) but I wasn't too unhappy with how things turned out - it's one of the other players who brought up it when it happened. If it had happened to him, he'd have been unhappy. Just wondered how other people felt.

Cheers,
Spon

You were playing Heroquest? Then yeah, what he did is against the rules, and I don't know why he/she would do that. That's why I specifically called "conflict resolution systems" in my first post in this thread.

(And I'm sure that Gronan will be here shortly to remind us his statement that "the rules can cure neither stupid nor asshole", and in this case, I'd agree...with the addendum "especially if you don't apply them in the first place":D!)

As far as the first example... remember Gronan's THIRD law of gaming.

"Anything that happened when you, or the referee, were 14, does NOT constitute a need to change the rules."  Or in this case, 16.  Hey, he was 16, shrug and move on.

Generally speaking, it is extremely stupid to have a critical result in something punishing. The exception could be when a natural-20 could represent using an excess of force; I could MAYBE see it being justifiable to argue that if someone is trying to do non-lethal damage, a natural 20 could result in a hit with regular damage.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1024870Generally speaking, it is extremely stupid to have a critical result in something punishing. The exception could be when a natural-20 could represent using an excess of force; I could MAYBE see it being justifiable to argue that if someone is trying to do non-lethal damage, a natural 20 could result in a hit with regular damage.

In a RuneQuest game, a Great troll PC was riding a griffin and tried to use Torture to get it to go somewhere dangerous, but he rolled a 100, a fumble, neatly snapping its neck mid-flight. Fortunately, he had a Jumping spell and jumped up to another PC, riding a griffin, grabbing hold of the PC's leg. Now, the same PC had previous where the Great Troll had done something similar and they had fallen to their deaths, so he took out his sword, chopped his leg off and followed the troll to the ground, where he grabbed his leg, stuck it back on and flew off again.

Heal-6 is a handy thing to have...or should I say that without Heal-6 he wouldn't have had a leg to stand on?

Quote from: soltakss;1024913In a RuneQuest game, a Great troll PC was riding a griffin and tried to use Torture to get it to go somewhere dangerous, but he rolled a 100, a fumble, neatly snapping its neck mid-flight. Fortunately, he had a Jumping spell and jumped up to another PC, riding a griffin, grabbing hold of the PC's leg. Now, the same PC had previous where the Great Troll had done something similar and they had fallen to their deaths, so he took out his sword, chopped his leg off and followed the troll to the ground, where he grabbed his leg, stuck it back on and flew off again.

Yeah, that would be the other approach: if you're trying a soft touch, then a fumble would probably be the right way to result in too much force.

An idea has just occured, maybe a crit can result in the player having more narrative control over how things come out. With the example of shooting the cars tyre out it would have been perfectly valid to have the player narrate the car spinning out of control and hitting something while the driver staggers out in fit state to be interrogated.

Whether or not players or characters should or should not have any control of the game narrative, beyond what they specifically said they were attempting ("I shoot at the car's tires/tyres"), is probably a bigger decision than this specific example.

Quote from: spon;1024129In the 1st case it was AD&D 1E and I specifically said I was trying to knock out the guard. The only defence I have for the ref is that we weren't particularly experienced (16 years old? 4 years of play?) and the GM loved rolling on the crit tables from Dragon.

Then you should have known about, or the DM should have told you about, subdual damage. And AD&D1e still doesn't have criticals. The DM should have spent less time reading Dragon magazine and more time reading the DMG. If you don't even know what's in the basic rules, don't go adding shit. Get the basics right before you get fancy.

But you were 16, and as Gronan likes to say, dumb shit you did when you were 16 does not indicate a problem with the rules of AD&D1e, or indeed any game. You were 16.

So all this was about nothing after all.

Quote from: Altheus;1025263An idea has just occured, maybe a crit can result in the player having more narrative control

Hell NO!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1025370Then you should have known about, or the DM should have told you about, subdual damage. And AD&D1e still doesn't have criticals. The DM should have spent less time reading Dragon magazine and more time reading the DMG. If you don't even know what's in the basic rules, don't go adding shit. Get the basics right before you get fancy.

But you were 16, and as Gronan likes to say, dumb shit you did when you were 16 does not indicate a problem with the rules of AD&D1e, or indeed any game. You were 16.

So all this was about nothing after all.

Cant say the GM did a great job in this case but the attitude expressed in this post always cracks me up. Then idea that somehow the RAW are golden and any deviation from them is some kind of holy trek, only to be attempted by a 'true master'. Give me a break. Every set of rules I have ever read for over 40 years has made it a point to state they are 'guidelines', mean to help the players and GM have fun and that when in doubt, what the GM decides goes. We were altering the rules our first session of D&D out of the White Box for Gods sake and have been doing so ever sense. Sometimes you make a judgement that doesnt work out very well and you learn to do better in the future. Whoop.

As to the specifics of this thread a "Crit" should indicate you did whatever you were trying to do extremely well. THE END.

Only an idiot would interpret an amazingly positive roll of the dice as a negative result in the game. Thats what failure and specifically 'fumbles' are for.

I try to steer my horse around the corner and roll a crit = I maneuver really well, not that I break the fucking horse's neck. I mean, please.

I try to charm the guard and roll a crit = he does exactly what I hoped he would, not that he falls in love and now follows me around causing a major pain in my ass.

Its a simple concept really. Not sure how anyone could mishandle this.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1025723... Its a simple concept really. Not sure how anyone could mishandle this.

I think people tend to mess up when they think they can resolve a complex action in one roll, and end up accidentally creating problematic mechanics. And in general, it seems to me many GMs mishandle a lot of things fairly often without noticing.

It seems to me the OP's cases were mainly being noticed because the GM's idea of how to handle it didn't match the player expectation, and so the player got upset by the unexpected result and sudden reversal when they thought a 20 would mean they do what they wanted, roll a 20, and get told it was the opposite.

But it seems to me it's also possible to mess up in less obvious ways, particularly is a case like this where you're adding a different type of intent to a mechanic that already has a range of possible outcomes. The outcomes (and the chances they ought to have) become more complicated when adding something like an intention to attack in a particular way. If you add a meaning to one or more of the possible rolls, what are you doing to the overall odds of the other potential outcomes? If players have to discover that by playing until the GM shows them his way of resolving something, it may take a while to detect.

And sometimes it seems like there's a strong force of apathetic inertia and a desire for simplicity for some players/groups that drowns out interest in more accurate mechanics.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1025721Cant say the GM did a great job in this case but the attitude expressed in this post always cracks me up. Then idea that somehow the RAW are golden

I don't have this idea at all. In fact if you look at my post history you'll find me mocking people who boldly proclaim how they follow AD&D1e rules to the letter. I say: "Tell me about the initiative rules." They're muddled and contradict themselves, so nobody was ever able to follow them. But this is not true of the subdual damage rule.

We have two possible situations here,

1. the game goes wrong, and you were following the rules, and
2. the game goes wrong, and you were not following the rules.

In the first case, there is something wrong with the rules. In the second there is not. I am simply pointing out that in the case presented in the original post, it's not the rules' fault that something stupid happened, it's the DM.

Spon did not "roll too well" in his AD&D1e game where he tried to knock someone out and accidentally killed them. It's just that his DM didn't know about subdual rules.

Suggesting that you get to know the basic rules before adding 1,000 different things from other sources isn't suggesting that the person requires some sort of holy mastery of the text. It's just common sense: start with the basics, build up. You add things because they're not in the basic rules, but if you don't even know the basic rules, how do you know what needs to be added? \

For example, trying to knock someone out and finding you accidentally killed them, in a realistic-themed game that's fine, in a game you want to be like comics and movies, that's terrible. So then if the rules don't have them, maybe you'd add something like subdual damage. So the DM could spend hours and hours coming up with subdual rules, or just turn to page so-and-so and go, "oh, there we go."

Spon's DM didn't need extra rules, he needed to make better use of the rules he already had. But of course, he was 16, so what do we expect. After much back and forth we discovered the real issue: the DM didn't know the system they were running.

In these discussions I try to address the issue the original poster brought up. Actually talking about the topic of the conversation rather than rehashing some argument with some person who isn't even here is, I realise, a radical act. But there you go.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1025723As to the specifics of this thread a "Crit" should indicate you did whatever you were trying to do extremely well. THE END.

For you, maybe. But presuming to have the last word is a tall order coming from someone who didn't allow a player to get a good glimpse at a stalker name, because it would spoil the narrative surprise:).

QuoteOnly an idiot would interpret an amazingly positive roll of the dice as a negative result in the game. Thats what failure and specifically 'fumbles' are for.

Doing amazingly well=/=achieving exactly what you want.
Doing something ill-advised extremely well means you do it so well nobody could fail to notice. Or you do it so well there's no way back.
It's a simple concept, really. I never thought anyone could fail to understand it;).

QuoteI try to charm the guard and roll a crit = he does exactly what I hoped he would, not that he falls in love and now follows me around causing a major pain in my ass.

Why the fuck not? You think charming a guard, as opposed to fast-talking him, is a good idea?
Yeah, I beg to differ:D!
Granted, I'd probably be less likely to have him fall in love, and more likely to see you as an errant child in need of protection...but that's up to the setting and character details.

Quote from: AsenRG;1025931Doing amazingly well=/=achieving exactly what you want.
Doing something ill-advised extremely well means you do it so well nobody could fail to notice. Or you do it so well there's no way back.
It's a simple concept, really. I never thought anyone could fail to understand it;).

I understand this point of view, but I don't quite agree with it. Why does "rolling the best you can" equate with "doing something ill-advised really well"?
I'd understand it in a system which had a "complications" die, or a "succeed with a cost" result. So I wasn't bothered in my third example. But the first 2 are solid trad games, there is no "succeed with consequence" rule built into the system. The system "breaks" are:
(optional fumble ->) fail -> succeed ( -> optional crit)
If "charming the guard" isn't such a good idea, you make it more difficult. Or you tell the player that if they fail/fumble something bad will happen. You don't say - hey you rolled a crit, I'm going to punish you for being so lucky.

1 and 3 are unreasonable.  1 should result in a KO guard period.

3 should result in a disabled shuttle. After the engines are disabled though, the shuttle should either move with its current speed in space or be forced to the ground with gravity on a planet. If on a planet, the resulting crash may cause their deaths depending on height from the surface. But in space, it is completely unreasonable unless their present course and speed would cause them to smash into an asteroid, moon, planet, or sun, crash into a larger ship, etc.

2 is reasonable. Taking out a tire causes the vehicle to unbalance and then the driver needs to compensate for that, failure to do so causes out of control which could result in sliding, skidding, flipping, etc. that could result in death. The explosion part is unrealistic though.

Quote from: spon;1025990I understand this point of view, but I don't quite agree with it. Why does "rolling the best you can" equate with "doing something ill-advised really well"?
I'd understand it in a system which had a "complications" die, or a "succeed with a cost" result. So I wasn't bothered in my third example. But the first 2 are solid trad games, there is no "succeed with consequence" rule built into the system. The system "breaks" are:
(optional fumble ->) fail -> succeed ( -> optional crit)
If "charming the guard" isn't such a good idea, you make it more difficult. Or you tell the player that if they fail/fumble something bad will happen. You don't say - hey you rolled a crit, I'm going to punish you for being so lucky.

Well I might, but I would try to notice and avoid if I was undermining a player's expectation about roll results first.

In The Fantasy Trip, for example, the rule for taking prisoners by beating on them is that you do half-damage but not enough to kill your target, unless you roll double or triple damage or a crippling hit (all of which are small flat chances), in which case it does full damage and can kill. But it's up-front in the rules, so assuming players can let go of certain die rolls needing to mean certain things, it works pretty well.

Quote from: spon;1025990I understand this point of view, but I don't quite agree with it. Why does "rolling the best you can" equate with "doing something ill-advised really well"?

It's the player who picks the ill-advised approach. And it might still work (it's ill-advised not boneheaded, and the distinction matters:p)!
But sometimes, it might work with a complication...due to you being too good at it. Why? Because me, as a Referee, decided so!

BTW, this seldom comes up. In fact, had the player picked an approach that's not ill-advised, the critical would have worked in his or her favor (as it usually does).

QuoteI'd understand it in a system which had a "complications" die, or a "succeed with a cost" result. So I wasn't bothered in my third example. But the first 2 are solid trad games, there is no "succeed with consequence" rule built into the system. The system "breaks" are:
(optional fumble ->) fail -> succeed ( -> optional crit)
If "charming the guard" isn't such a good idea, you make it more difficult. Or you tell the player that if they fail/fumble something bad will happen. You don't say - hey you rolled a crit, I'm going to punish you for being so lucky.

You've got the "trad systems" bit backwards, AFAICT:).
In most trad systems, the roll determines solely how good your attempt was. It's the Ref that says what follows from this.
In conflict resolution systems, things would work as you say (bad results only on a bad roll, good results get you what you wanted even if your actual skill wasn't good enough - like, shooting in an archery contest to impress a princess, you might impress her without winning the contest).

Also, a fumble, to me, means "you fail, and something bad happens". An ill-advised action means "you might succeed or not, but you're much more likely to make your life complicated in addition to that possible success";). That's what charming this guard means.
Had it been completely bone-headed, I'd have done as you suggested:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1025931Doing amazingly well=/=achieving exactly what you want.
Doing something ill-advised extremely well means you do it so well nobody could fail to notice. Or you do it so well there's no way back.
It's a simple concept, really. I never thought anyone could fail to understand it;).

Why are you punishing players for a random effect that they don't control?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1026044Why are you punishing players for a random effect that they don't control?

Yeah, I'm pretty much Barbarian King of the Random Roll, but I'm with you on this one, kid.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026049Yeah, I'm pretty much Barbarian King of the Random Roll, but I'm with you on this one, kid.

Et tu, Generalis gloriosa:D?

OK, I respect you enough to answer that.
Because that's the same logic that says "why are you punishing the players for your roll on the encounter table, followed by a bad roll on the Reaction table". It's not like they had any input in this, right:)?
Therefore, it's better to always give them level-appropriate encounters...right;)?

Second, because the players could have influenced it. They only had to pick an approach I didn't consider "ill-advised". (And yes, Cupcake, I know what you're going to say: Yes, I decide which approach is ill-advised and which isn't. It's called "being a Referee").

Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

And for some reason, nobody who's ever played with me had ever complained about that particular approach. Only people who have never seen me running a game are persuaded it totally spoils my games.
Funny how that happens, too;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Because that's the same logic that says "why are you punishing the players for your roll on the encounter table, followed by a bad roll on the Reaction table". It's not like they had any input in this, right:)?

To me it's more like saying  - roll a d20 and I'll consult the treasure table, the higher you roll, the better.
I rolled a 20
Oh, sorry, you rolled too well, have a magic item but it's cursed.

That's how it seems to me. Obviously not to you, but to each his own.

Cheers
Spon

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

On the other hand, I completely agree with this. But if I was GM, I'd probably hint that theirs wasn't the safest approach. ("You want to shoot the lock off the door with a bazooka? Ok ... you do realise it's a standard wooden front door, yes?")

Quote from: spon;1026084To me it's more like saying  - roll a d20 and I'll consult the treasure table, the higher you roll, the better.
I rolled a 20
Oh, sorry, you rolled too well, have a magic item but it's cursed.

That's how it seems to me. Obviously not to you, but to each his own.

Cheers
Spon

Do you also see a problem with blackjack, then? I mean, 21 is best, 25 sucks:)

Again, I see no problem with a "random magic weapon table" where 19 and 20 are the worse rolls.To me, that amounts to "roll as close to 18 as you can, but try to keep it under 18, with exactly equal to 18 means you move to legendary artefact sub-table".
Personally, I prefer blackjack-style mechanics. I also like Pendragon, which works as stated above, better than D&D, where higher is always better;).

Quote from: spon;1026085On the other hand, I completely agree with this. But if I was GM, I'd probably hint that theirs wasn't the safest approach. ("You want to shoot the lock off the door with a bazooka? Ok ... you do realise it's a standard wooden front door, yes?")

Sorry, but hinting doesn't always work.
"The door is wooden and that's overkill" is fine and straightforward.
"The signature you're imitating is the signature of the baron you killed the previous night, because you stole the documents from his desk, and these are his castle's guards (who would know the signature, or else the fake order wouldn't have worked) because you're in the frigging castle for a second night in a row, and you put today's date on the document", however? Then it's not my job to warn the players that what they're doing is, as I choose to put it, ill-advised. I just asked about each of those one by one, and told you the guards look vigilant, because hey. the baron was offed last night.

Had she at least made an average roll, the signature might have been illegible enough for the guards not to notice. But she had to roll 6+ successes, meaning a chef-d'oeuvre. And I asked her how clear she wanted the copied signature to be, and yes, she said she wants it as good a copy as possible.
And no, that wasn't even a roll on "forgery skill", where it would have made sense to warn the player the forgery sucks. It was a roll on the "painting" hobby skill.
Then there comes a point where my duty as Referee is to make the guards sucker-punch the wannabe ninja, while pretending to go along with the fake document:D!

1) Clearly (hopefully?) ... there is no material issue with the chances of results being mixed high/low if there is nothing in the math of the way the roll is done that assigns good/intentional results to high or low numbers. But there would be as soon as you did something that would make positive factors (like character ability level) increase the chance of negative outcomes, unless it's something like strength and the roll is for how much force you use, and there's no way around it being a problem to use too much force ... but in that case, the player should be able to say how much of their strength they use.

2) There's also an illusionary non-material issue with the whole "the player is trying to roll high (or low)" but some of the results are backwards thing, if there are no factors influencing the roll and it's a single-die roll. But even so, that upsets players because they tend to like the understanding of what their roll numbers should mean, and they like the illusion that they are doing something meaningful by rolling and reading the die themselves.

3) Also there is a possibility that a GM is doing something screwy (intentionally or not) by rolling dice without a solid idea what the results will mean, and then making up the interpretation in the moment, possibly creating a fiat "you're screwed despite your roll" situation, which is what it looks like when you think you should roll high and then you do and the GM says that it has a horrible result. Some GMs don't think through their mechanics, or are actually just being control-freaks forcing results. Some others may have actually thought through the results but given the players the wrong impression of what the roll numbers would mean.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Second, because the players could have influenced it. They only had to pick an approach I didn't consider "ill-advised". (And yes, Cupcake, I know what you're going to say: Yes, I decide which approach is ill-advised and which isn't. It's called "being a Referee").

Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

QuoteSorry, but hinting doesn't always work.
"The door is wooden and that's overkill" is fine and straightforward.
"The signature you're imitating is the signature of the baron you killed the previous night, because you stole the documents from his desk, and these are his castle's guards (who would know the signature, or else the fake order wouldn't have worked) because you're in the frigging castle for a second night in a row, and you put today's date on the document", however? Then it's not my job to warn the players that what they're doing is, as I choose to put it, ill-advised. I just asked about each of those one by one, and told you the guards look vigilant, because hey. the baron was offed last night.

Had she at least made an average roll, the signature might have been illegible enough for the guards not to notice. But she had to roll 6+ successes, meaning a chef-d'oeuvre. And I asked her how clear she wanted the copied signature to be, and yes, she said she wants it as good a copy as possible.
And no, that wasn't even a roll on "forgery skill", where it would have made sense to warn the player the forgery sucks. It was a roll on the "painting" hobby skill.

This seems to be conflating some portion of players choosing to do foolish endeavors in the first place with how the roll mechanism is supposed to work. The two seem to be equally valid but completely separate concerns.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026095Do you also see a problem with blackjack, then? I mean, 21 is best, 25 sucks:)

Again, I see no problem with a "random magic weapon table" where 19 and 20 are the worse rolls.To me, that amounts to "roll as close to 18 as you can, but try to keep it under 18, with exactly equal to 18 means you move to legendary artefact sub-table".

Right, but in both those cases, you are using a mechanic that is not defined as "highest is best." Nor would anyone mistake a 25 in blackjack as a critical success. Random generator results (dice, cards, or otherwise) do not have to have an ordinal direction, and "really bad" absolutely can be right next to "really good" or anywhere else. What I believe the thread consensus is discussing, on the other hand, is something pre-described by the agreed-upon resolution mechanic to be a 'critical success,' to end in a result less optimal than a standard success.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026077Et tu, Generalis gloriosa:D?

OK, I respect you enough to answer that.
Because that's the same logic that says "why are you punishing the players for your roll on the encounter table, followed by a bad roll on the Reaction table". It's not like they had any input in this, right:)?
Therefore, it's better to always give them level-appropriate encounters...right;)?

Second, because the players could have influenced it. They only had to pick an approach I didn't consider "ill-advised". (And yes, Cupcake, I know what you're going to say: Yes, I decide which approach is ill-advised and which isn't. It's called "being a Referee").

Third, because for some reason, I always see players trying to justify a less-than-appropriate approach that they have much higher stats for. Wonder how that happens...but well, in that case, I think making the additional negative result trigger if you "roll too well", is fully appropriate.

And for some reason, nobody who's ever played with me had ever complained about that particular approach. Only people who have never seen me running a game are persuaded it totally spoils my games.
Funny how that happens, too;).

All this has nothing to do with players rolling 'too high'.  There's no logic in this statement.  What does having players rolling 'too high' when you roll too low or whatever?

Apparently you didn't understand my question.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026095Do you also see a problem with blackjack, then? I mean, 21 is best, 25 sucks:)

Non sequitur.  The rules of blackjack clearly state the upper limit.  Your example is more like "Get as high as you can.  Oh, too high, you lose your money."

At which point, Black Bart shoots you dead and no jury in the world convicts him.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1026110All this has nothing to do with players rolling 'too high'.  There's no logic in this statement.  What does having players rolling 'too high' when you roll too low or whatever?

Apparently you didn't understand my question.

Damn good question.  He's been unusually thick headed throughout this entire discussion, including ignoring most of what everyone else said.

Quote from: Skarg;10260991) Clearly (hopefully?) ... there is no material issue with the chances of results being mixed high/low if there is nothing in the math of the way the roll is done that assigns good/intentional results to high or low numbers.

Clearly, there is, though:).

QuoteBut there would be as soon as you did something that would make positive factors (like character ability level) increase the chance of negative outcomes, unless it's something like strength and the roll is for how much force you use, and there's no way around it being a problem to use too much force ... but in that case, the player should be able to say how much of their strength they use.

How much strength you use.
How clearly you copy a signature using painting skill.
You say tomahto, I say tomato.

Quote2) There's also an illusionary non-material issue with the whole "the player is trying to roll high (or low)" but some of the results are backwards thing, if there are no factors influencing the roll and it's a single-die roll. But even so, that upsets players because they tend to like the understanding of what their roll numbers should mean, and they like the illusion that they are doing something meaningful by rolling and reading the die themselves.

I've had players that think they can influence the throw.
I always make them roll with a cup, unlike everyone else;).
For everyone else, it should be a non-issue. If I give you "roll under or equal to 18 on 1d20+10*", what I'm saying is that you succeed in 40% of the cases, and unless you're cheating on the roll, there's no difference to me saying "roll 13-20 on the d20, but on 11 and 12 I narrate it slightly differently", or "roll 1d20+10 with a penalty of -2, TN 21, but if you fail due to the penalty, I'm going to narrate it a bit differently".
However, the first of those makes it clearer to me when the failure is due to your attempt not being good enough, and when it's "too good". Furthermore, it spends me from needing to double-check whether you failed due to the penalty. It's a GM-side help, but is immaterial to the player.

*Yes, my original example was from an actual play with a d6 dicepool system, but it's the same thing, you just need to play with the number of successes...so I'm just simplifying the math in my example.

Quote3) Also there is a possibility that a GM is doing something screwy (intentionally or not) by rolling dice without a solid idea what the results will mean, and then making up the interpretation in the moment, possibly creating a fiat "you're screwed despite your roll" situation, which is what it looks like when you think you should roll high and then you do and the GM says that it has a horrible result. Some GMs don't think through their mechanics, or are actually just being control-freaks forcing results. Some others may have actually thought through the results but given the players the wrong impression of what the roll numbers would mean.

Yeah, I'm the last kind (I had considered the results for no successes, 1-3, 4-5, and 6+ successes). But no, I don't believe I need to tell you what the roll numbers would mean...apart from whether you did well on your attempt.
Which might be an attempt to persuade the target in something that would make them hate you. Yes, I've done that, too.

...sigh. Let me try again. You're running from incorporeal undead in a dungeon, using a d20 system** where forceful actions are a d20+Str modifier check. Thinking mistakenly that it cannot cross a doorway uninvited, you close the door to a storeroom, which is the only exit, and nail it shut with iron spikes (intending to sit it out).
Do you see anything wrong with the GM asking you to roll for how quickly and efficiently you can hammer the spikes in (given that he knows the incorporeal undead will pass through the door in X rounds, since solid obstacles merely slow it down)? And would you say that in this case, if you roll a 19 on the check to hammer them in as fast as you can, you should have failed to hammer them, while a 1-7 would mean you've hammered them just fine, and are now trapped in the room with the hungry shade?

Or, might it be that you were working very hard at a self-defeating plan, and failing would have been to your advantage? Because that's what I'm talking about this whole thread. High rolls in a trad game mean only whether your performed your plan well.
If the plan was flawed from the get-go, rolling high on it means you just get to the complications part faster and with less chances to swerve;).

**Not you, as in "you Skarg", I know you don't play d20, but run with the example, OK:D?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1026106This seems to be conflating some portion of players choosing to do foolish endeavors in the first place with how the roll mechanism is supposed to work. The two seem to be equally valid but completely separate concerns.

No, they're not completely separate. When they do something foolish, and how good they are at doing it matters, sometimes I switch the mechanic around and the highest rolls bring the worst results. See above for the "incorporeal undead" explanation.

I really, really refuse to help PCs that roll their best to run from the police car chasing them, thinking it's a serial killer masquerading as a cop, and running towards the serial killer who was masquerading as their confidante. And yes, had that happen, too (it was an alien killer who could adopt different shapes...the thing is, the GM knew exactly which shape the alien had adopted at any given moment, but the players had guessed wrong).

QuoteRight, but in both those cases, you are using a mechanic that is not defined as "highest is best." Nor would anyone mistake a 25 in blackjack as a critical success.

You haven't played with enough newbies, I think.
"I have 18 skill! I rolled 20" - proudly announced in a Pendragon campaign (where 20 is the fumble result).

QuoteRandom generator results (dice, cards, or otherwise) do not have to have an ordinal direction, and "really bad" absolutely can be right next to "really good" or anywhere else. What I believe the thread consensus is discussing, on the other hand, is something pre-described by the agreed-upon resolution mechanic to be a 'critical success,' to end in a result less optimal than a standard success.

The numbers themselves don't have an intrinsic value, either. They just denote the likelihood of something happening.
The "critical success" result might well be the worst result in another game. Think of it as "adapting a mechanic that fits better the current situation".
If that means I'm breaking the rules and running by fiat, or something...well, so be it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026115Non sequitur.  The rules of blackjack clearly state the upper limit.  Your example is more like "Get as high as you can.  Oh, too high, you lose your money."

No, my example is "get as high as you can...on the roll to execute flawlessly the detail that would spoil your plan". If she hadn't rolled so high, I'd have rolled for the guards to miss the fake signature being the one of a guy who can't have signed it.
The way she rolled, they couldn't miss that detail.

QuoteAt which point, Black Bart shoots you dead and no jury in the world convicts him.

Non sequitur. I'm not playing blackjack. I'm talking about a blackjack-style mechanic in RPGs. You know, like the basic mechanic of Pendragon, Unknown Armies and Mythras, to name a few.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026116Damn good question.  He's been unusually thick headed throughout this entire discussion, including ignoring most of what everyone else said.

If by "most of what everyone else said" you mean "what Brady said", here's a free hint: I don't even see most of his posts. Consequently, I can't reply to them, unless I took the pains to read that specific post.
Does wonders for my nerves;).

And since you're talking about me, it seems, let me return the question: what happened to the Frei Kriegspeil logic that you profess, where the dice are only used to help the Referee, and they mean what the Referee think they should mean?
Why am I not allowed to change the meaning of the dice, all of a sudden, especially since I would have honoured the better result if she had rolled less successes, too?
(Admittedly, that example is from a decade ago, when I didn't know what Frei Kriegspiel means, but my Refereeing style had already morphed to its current shape, more or less).

Free Kriegsspiel is based on impeachable referee honesty above all else.  If you tell your players "Rolling high is good" with the unspoken proviso "Unless I decide it's bad," that's not "free Kriegsspiel," that's "being a really awful referee."  The fictional world must above all be CONSISTENT.  Any Free Kriegsspiel umpire who decided that infantry marched 100 yards one turn and 800 yards the next would be hung up by his sabretaches.

The players depend on the referee to give them the information they need to make coherent decisions.  If you keep pulling shit like that the players will realize the information is useless.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026138How much strength you use.
How clearly you copy a signature using painting skill.
You say tomahto, I say tomato.

Strength is different because too much can often break things you don't mean to break.
Using too much painting skill would just produce a very accurate copy, causing no unintended side-effects.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026138If I give you "roll under or equal to 18 on 1d20+10*", what I'm saying is that you succeed in 40% of the cases, and unless you're cheating on the roll, there's no difference to me saying "roll 13-20 on the d20, but on 11 and 12 I narrate it slightly differently", or "roll 1d20+10 with a penalty of -2, TN 21, but if you fail due to the penalty, I'm going to narrate it a bit differently".
However, the first of those makes it clearer to me when the failure is due to your attempt not being good enough, and when it's "too good". Furthermore, it spends me from needing to double-check whether you failed due to the penalty. It's a GM-side help, but is immaterial to the player.

Right, assuming you tell them and they understand and don't have an intractable attachment to certain rolling conventions.

Quote from: AsenRG;1026138You're running from incorporeal undead in a dungeon, using a d20 system** where forceful actions are a d20+Str modifier check. Thinking mistakenly that it cannot cross a doorway uninvited, you close the door to a storeroom, which is the only exit, and nail it shut with iron spikes (intending to sit it out).
Do you see anything wrong with the GM asking you to roll for how quickly and efficiently you can hammer the spikes in (given that he knows the incorporeal undead will pass through the door in X rounds, since solid obstacles merely slow it down)? And would you say that in this case, if you roll a 19 on the check to hammer them in as fast as you can, you should have failed to hammer them, while a 1-7 would mean you've hammered them just fine, and are now trapped in the room with the hungry shade?

Or, might it be that you were working very hard at a self-defeating plan, and failing would have been to your advantage? Because that's what I'm talking about this whole thread. High rolls in a trad game mean only whether your performed your plan well.
If the plan was flawed from the get-go, rolling high on it means you just get to the complications part faster and with less chances to swerve;).

**Not you, as in "you Skarg", I know you don't play d20, but run with the example, OK:D?

Ok.
I think it makes sense to determine how well and quickly the PCs nail themselves in the room.
But no, naturally I would use the game's usual mechanic to see how well they do that, without reversing the numbers due to the folly of the plan that they don't realize yet.
Clearly, they aren't trying to nail the door shut in any different way than usual.

I may have missed some tangent of this thread, but the core examples were all subdual attacks and the "too good" backfires were all about the attack doing strong deadly damage instead of non-lethal damage.

In subdual using a lethal weapon, it's like an attack but trying to do damage but avoid lethal damage. That's two partially-conflicting goals in one action. If you want to combine them into one die-roll, and you want to include the possibility of accidentally killing the target, but not remove the usual crit-fail results for an attack, then I expect usually you either need to use a carefully-considered roll with at least one more than the usual number of possible results (without unintentionally messing up the odds in dumb ways), or use two rolls (one to see if you manage to attack non-lethally, and the other for how effective the attack is).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026145Free Kriegsspiel is based on impeachable referee honesty above all else.  If you tell your players "Rolling high is good" with the unspoken proviso "Unless I decide it's bad," that's not "free Kriegsspiel," that's "being a really awful referee."  The fictional world must above all be CONSISTENT.  Any Free Kriegsspiel umpire who decided that infantry marched 100 yards one turn and 800 yards the next would be hung up by his sabretaches.

The players depend on the referee to give them the information they need to make coherent decisions.  If you keep pulling shit like that the players will realize the information is useless.

Yeah, I have to agree.  The hidden proviso just makes that person into dick.