Goodman Games

I haven't played the game but love the rulebook and will run a campaign soon and see if my group enjoys the game.

But I think attack fumbles are too frequent. A competent combatant doesn't fumble every 20 swings. So I am thinking of adding a "confirm" type thing, maybe avoid the fumble by making a DC15 level check modified by perhaps:
1) Strength for melee
2) Agility for missle
or perhaps
3) current luck score?
for monsters
4) hit dice

As far as crits are concerned, I think a confirmation is in order, roll another attack roll with the same bonuses, if you hit the AC you confirm. Or would another level check be better, maybe also DC15 and modified by your level?

Thoughts?

Keep in mind that a Warrior can spend a point of Luck to avert a fumble, and that your Luck modifier is used when rolling the fumble. Because of that, a number of PC fumbles should be nothing more than bad swings. A Halfling may burn Luck on behalf of other party members on a 2 for 1 basis, and there is nothing in the rules that prevents doing this to ameliorate an unlucky fumble. Likewise, a Thief may well burn Luck to avert a bad fumble. As Halflings and Thieves recover their Luck, this may not be a bad idea in many circumstances.

If you read the literature the game draws from, "fumbles" are not as uncommon as you might think. IMHO, they add drama and tension.

PERILS OF THE SUNKEN CITY SPOILER: In Perils of the Sunken City, the opposumen "play dead" whenever they fumble. I was saddened when I played this adventure that no opposumen -- not even those run by the players to replace the dead! -- managed to fumble. The idea of the characters waiting half an hour while the silly bugger pretends to be dead (or not; my players may well have simply deserted the opposuman as not being really one of them) is just too good to not have it happen in a game. Looks like I've got to run Ooze Pits and hope the dice come up low at a suitable time!

I have now played quite a bit of DCC, and I haven't noticed fumbles as detracting from game play in the slightest. I also roll fumbles for monsters (usually 1d4 as the monster is unarmoured), and players love those as much as they dread critical hits by the opposition. I would strongly urge you to try the combat system through a funnel or two before you change this aspect of it. Of course, "fear no rule" and do what you wish. That's just my 2 cp.

Daniel

Try it first, before changing it. IMO confirmation rolls only slow the game down without adding anything, plus they are the best way of making an excited player dissatisfied. Looking a bit into math you'll also realize, that having a 1 in 20 chance doesn't means it's going to happen once in every twenty attack, since every roll and chance is independent. It's called the "gambler's fallacy" if my memory serves me right.

cthulhudarren wrote:I haven't played the game but love the rulebook and will run a campaign soon and see if my group enjoys the game.

Glad to hear you like the rule book and are trying to convert your group!

As someone else already noted, I would suggest that you play the game "as is" before changing it. You may find that the "play" is different from the "read." (Hint: it is. ) There are ways to avoid fumbles; randomness is a key part of the game (in ways other than just combat); and some parts of the rules may interact unusually with what you are suggesting (e.g., two-handed weapon use, especially by halflings).

As an aside, I have had several encounters now with gamers who comment on DCC RPG "rules" that are actually house rules invented by their DM, and those house rules were in some cases the cause of concern. As they say in the legalese - I am not responsible for less-than-perfect play experiences created by house rules.

After you have played for a while, then definitely consider changes if you still encounter the same concerns.

In all the games I have run or played so far neither one has seemed too frequent. I would, as the others have encouraged, recommend trying the rules as written a bit and see how it plays out.

I've had monsters fumble as much as the players have, collectively. One poor guy has fumbled every single attack roll he's made so far, which is kind of an amusing study in statistical outliers.

I'm curious if you've had problems with crits and fumbles in other RPGs before. I've used the "natural 20 crit" and the "natural 1 fumble" ruels for about 30 years (no idea where we got the rule; we've played that way almost as long as I can remember gaming) and my players just accept it for what it is.

We figure that there is always a chance of success and always a chance for failure and this seems to simulate it pretty well.

Realistic? Maybe not, but remember that we're playing a game and not trying to create a computer simulation of actual combat.

cthulhudarren wrote:A competent combatant doesn't fumble every 20 swings.

That is true.

Neither does any character in a DCC game. A 5% chance of something happening is simply that, a chance, and the statistical probability will seem to go straight out the window once you actually get some dice bouncing across the table.

I've been running DCC for a collective 50 sessions now (not all that much when you think about it, but still) and I have seen 7 fumbles rolled by players and barely twice as many rolled by monsters - most of which have been extremely minor results like "you almost tripped but caught your footing," with no actual effect on the characters - only two actually had impact, those being wizards winding up with corruption from a spell going awry.

Criticals have been a little more common than that, but not much... and considering the critical tables as what they are - a critical isn't always a great thing: table II has a result of "you missed anyways", and all the tables the warrior has access to include results of flying into a potentially friend-harming rage.

Absolutely never will it feel like 1 in 20 attacks is a fumble, or that however many wide the warrior's critical range is in 20 attacks is a critical - at least not if you use a true enough (as in not heavily biased) random number generator.

Consider that as characters level they get more actions per round. Since fumbles occur 5% of the time per roll, this actually means high level characters fumble more often per 10 seconds (round) than a low level character does. This never sits right with me but that's a whole other story.

One thing I would have liked on the fumble tables would have been a larger range of non-effects. I have a custom d30 fumble table I made for D&D and 10 results have no adverse effect (just colour for describing the action). Basically this builds the "confirmation roll" in to the table and requires no extra work or step. Play DCC as is for now but it's something to consider if it continues bothering you.

bholmes4 wrote:Consider that as characters level they get more actions per round. Since fumbles occur 5% of the time per roll, this actually means high level characters fumble more often per 10 seconds (round) than a low level character does. This never sits right with me but that's a whole other story.

Let's not forget that for high level characters 10 seconds means something else, than for low level characters. They are going to make the same number of fumbles under the same number of attacks.

bholmes4 wrote:One thing I would have liked on the fumble tables would have been a larger range of non-effects. I have a custom d30 fumble table I made for D&D and 10 results have no adverse effect (just colour for describing the action). Basically this builds the "confirmation roll" in to the table and requires no extra work or step. Play DCC as is for now but it's something to consider if it continues bothering you.

A "built in confirmation roll" sounds like a good idea.

Ravenheart87 wrote:

bholmes4 wrote:One thing I would have liked on the fumble tables would have been a larger range of non-effects. I have a custom d30 fumble table I made for D&D and 10 results have no adverse effect (just colour for describing the action). Basically this builds the "confirmation roll" in to the table and requires no extra work or step. Play DCC as is for now but it's something to consider if it continues bothering you.

A "built in confirmation roll" sounds like a good idea.

I'm guessing you could achieve the same result by subtracting the character's level from the fumble roll.

tovokas wrote: I'm guessing you could achieve the same result by subtracting the character's level from the fumble roll.

Nice one. I like the rules as they are, but if I were uncomfortable with the fumble mechanic then this suggestion would seem like a great idea.

tovokas wrote:

Ravenheart87 wrote:

bholmes4 wrote:One thing I would have liked on the fumble tables would have been a larger range of non-effects. I have a custom d30 fumble table I made for D&D and 10 results have no adverse effect (just colour for describing the action). Basically this builds the "confirmation roll" in to the table and requires no extra work or step. Play DCC as is for now but it's something to consider if it continues bothering you.

A "built in confirmation roll" sounds like a good idea.

I'm guessing you could achieve the same result by subtracting the character's level from the fumble roll.

Brilliant. You've won the thread.

Fumbles are fun

RevTurkey wrote:Fumbles are fun

Especially when they come at just the right time and you get to see the look on a player's face change from "oh man, I'm gonna die," to an "I can't believe it!" happy grin quickly followed by laughter as that terrifying monster barreling down on his character trips, slides through some mud, and finds himself looking up at everyone and everything around wishing they hadn't just seen that embarrassing mishap.

My party put a lot of beastmen down due to DM fumbles! It works both ways.

tovokas wrote: I'm guessing you could achieve the same result by subtracting the character's level from the fumble roll.

This is a nice idea and would mean high level characters recover from fumbles more often. I also always forget to apply luck modifiers to my crits and fumbles so this would help hammer it in to my brain that I modify the roll. It will take some tweaking of my tables (or a tweaking of the DCC tables if I use in conjunction with those) but I am eager to test it.

Thanks.

Ravenheart87 wrote:

tovokas wrote:

Ravenheart87 wrote: A "built in confirmation roll" sounds like a good idea.

I'm guessing you could achieve the same result by subtracting the character's level from the fumble roll.

Brilliant. You've won the thread.

I agree. Great idea.

tovokas wrote:I'm guessing you could achieve the same result by subtracting the character's level from the fumble roll.

Great idea! I am playing as is for now, but if I see this become a problem I think this will be the house rule that fixes it.

Although fumbles can be frustrating, I actually think they are quite realistic (to some extent). Take any military action,. many deaths are the result of what could be called fumbles: friendly fire, helicopter crashing, etc... Those actually account for a significant percentage of the casualties, and it's not counting the injuries.

Or, in a well-known fictional reference, in Aliens II, when the group of marines first encounters the aliens, there is at least one important fumble there as one marine inadvertantly sets another marine on fire and the latter is the one carrying everyone's ammo, leading to explosion of said ammo. Major fumble...

I've long been in the camp of "a higher level fighter should not fumble more often than a low level fighter". However, I changed my mind: the more you fire a gun or hit with a sword, the more you're likely to fumble, IMO.