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.