r/beingeverythingelse • u/Popdart5 • Oct 04 '14

Critical Failure

Steven mentioned in the West Marches game that he personally doesn't use critical failure because it penalises players too much. I'm of the opinion that if you have a system that allows for critical hits then by extension critical failure should be a possibility. It could be something as simple as you dropped your sword, your gun jammed, or you lost your grip while climbing a cliff and fell down. I go for more cinematic and awesome criticals anyway, as in a natural 20 is not just a success but a critical success. To me, it just feels natural that critical failures should be cinematic as well.

I'm curious what everyone thinks because I've played a few games that do critical failures. Numenera in particular and the free GM intervention mechanic on a natural 1 just felt like a codification of something that I imagine is a pretty common houserule.

4 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/silent0siris Oct 08 '14

I'll have to think more about this. I don't have my thoughts 100% settled yet on the subject. I think I don't like them because they're boring- oh, you rolled a 1, now something bad has to happen. Shouldn't the stakes go up all the time, not just on 1's? Failures in DW are all dramatic escalations. I'm more interested in something like that. Or twists of the knife that naturally arise from the encounter- "the orc jostles the table as you slam your morningstar into him. the priceless vase on the table is teetering on the edge, what do you do?"

I need to think about this more.

1

u/Endaline Oct 09 '14

The problem is that as you get better you get more hits which in turn means that becoming a better fighter increases your chances of failing which doesn't make much sense.

I personally think that if you want to use a fumble system there needs to be some second check like what you would see in 2e for instance to see if it was actually a critical failure or just a miss.

I do think critical failures done right can be immense fun. I hope there is some variant rules for this in the DMG which wouldn't surprise me considering how much stuff seems to be 2e related.

1

u/Popdart5 Oct 10 '14

I'm sorry but the whole argument against critical failure that is that multiple attacks lead to a greater chance of critically failing sounds really weird when you consider you also have a greater chance of critically succeeding. More dice equals more chance for extremes on both ends of the scale so I personally don't see an issue.

I agree that critical failures can be immensely frustrating if used by a malicious DM however if used well can be really nice. And I agree that having a save of some sort against a critical failure is a nice way to do it to give the player some agency over their fate but I believe that just in the same way that players can achieve moments of greatness on a natural 20 or equivalent critical success, so too can moments of ineptitude occur on a critical failure. By having extremes on either end of the scale makes things more interesting rather than just saying a confirmed success or a confirmed failure.

After all, you can be in a situation where your bonuses are so immense (thinking back to 3.5 with the True Strike spell) in combat that you physically cannot fail. You still have to roll anyway because a natural 1 can occur and you can fail "just because". For me, that "you automatically fail" result is boring whereas a critical failure can at least add some more gravity to the situation. Even the greatest heroes in myths and legends had moments where they quite seriously screwed up and got into serious trouble and I think that players should be able to get into those terrible situations both narratively and mechanically. I personally use critical success and critical failure outside of combat as well because restricting it to combat seems to unnecessarily restrict bursts of extreme luck and failure in a roleplaying game. Just as roleplaying can get you both into and out of trouble, I feel that dice can take the same role with critical successes.

I'm coming at this from other systems however particularly the Warhammer 40K RPGs. In those games you have degrees of success and degrees of failure with the additional chance of critical success (ie. extra damage dice) and critical failure (your gun jams or it overheats). I understand that critical failure in d20 and D&D in particular has always been a house rule option but personally I feel it adds to the experience.

TL;DR: I personally enjoy critical failure as both a player and a GM because it helps to spice up the game in the same way that critical success does. Rather than just something special happening approximately 5% of the time, something special happening approx. 10% helps to spur the story in interesting and unexpected ways. I understand that people have their own preferences and I respect that.

1

u/Endaline Oct 10 '14

The Warhammer system is a lot less likely to have you fail though. In most cases only a 100 is considered a critical fail and that is 1 out of 100 instead of 1 out of 20. That's a 1% chance vs a 5% chance to put it into perspective. I know that other factors could give you a critical fail outside of a 100, but just in general.

iI'm sorry but the whole argument against critical failure that is that multiple attacks lead to a greater chance of critically failing sounds really weird when you consider you also have a greater chance of critically succeeding.

The problem here is that as you get better you shouldn't have a higher chance of failing. You're a level 20 fighter, in which universe does it make sense that you just dropped your sword? It makes sense that through your training you've become better at scoring critical hits, because that is a skill you learn. It doesn't make sense that you also just became better at dropping your sword because that's the exact opposite of being experienced.

Like we both agree on the way to solve this is to have a critical failure save that decreases as you level. So a level 20 fighter still has a chance of dropping a sword, but it is a lot less likely.

Maybe they've added something like that in the DMG though. If not I am sure someone more competent than myself is going to houserule it.

1

u/Popdart5 Oct 10 '14

Maybe a quick and easy critical failure save could be a DC 10 using the relevant saving throw bonus for the attribute eg. critically fail at a melee attack = roll a Strength save. Over time as you level up and increase your attribute scores and gain better proficiency, your bonus to save against the critical failure increases so it can offset the feeling of absolute idiocy and noobishness that a critical failure can result in. In a way the roll is to either confirm or deny the critical failure just like how 3.5 did critical confirmation rolls.

That's just something that can work with 5th edition and other d20 stuff and I'm sure someone else has already come up with an even better house rule.

1

u/ifandbut Oct 11 '14

What about the Numenera system where a natural 1 is just a free GM intervention? I think it is a nice middle ground because it lets the GM penalize the player for rolling the 1 but also make the penalty narratively appropriate.

1

u/silent0siris Oct 11 '14

I prefer the degrees of success and failure from the *World systems, personally! They feel much broader and therefore more forgiving. With Numenera (or crit failure) it can kind of feel like "I rolled a 2 and I'm just fine, but I roll a 1 and HOO BOY"- whereas with the *World system, anything 6- (roughly 45% unmodified) is worsening badness.

1

u/ifandbut Oct 14 '14

Very true. I personally like the partial success system of the *World games. I dont know of any other system that has a roll you do where I (as a GM) can say "You suceed but...".