Roleplaying games that DON'T use D20s?

[Lheticus]

I've dabbled in D&D and Pathfinder in the past, and there were a number of problems that prevented me from truly enjoying things. In this thread I'd like to tackle one that I suspect may be solvable. That problem is one I have with the use of the d20 for the majority of checks in a tabletop RPG game. To my perception, there is simply too large a possibility, if one were to roll several mediocre rolls in a row--ESPECIALLY in games where 1 = crit miss--that any number of player characters would display a level of incompetence so jarring for supposed full-fledged adventurers that the dice themselves break my Willing Suspension of Disbelief(tm).

Essentially what I'm asking for is: Are there any tabletop RPGs that DON'T involve a d20? That seems the simplest way to solve this concern.

[Knaight]

Essentially what I'm asking for is: Are there any tabletop RPGs that DON'T involve a d20? That seems the simplest way to solve this concern.

There's a huge number, to the point where I'd almost consider the d20 a D&D and D&D offshoot quirk. Do you have any other preferences here? For instance, do you want to stick with fantasy games? Do you want to stick with games with a lot of rules and long books?

Or, if we stick entirely to dice mechanics - are you particularly attached to rolling and adding. Does rolling a bunch of dice and counting how many are in a certain region (e.g. rolling Td6 and counting those that are 4-6 or 5-6) appeal? Does rolling a set of dice and looking for matches where both the number of dice that match and the number that they match on appeal? Etc.

As for fairly similar games - try GURPS. It's another very rules heavy game which defines most everything, which also supports fantasy quite well. It also uses 3d6 roll under as a core dice mechanic.

[SixWingedAsura]

I'm in the works to develop a(nother) playing-card based game that's entirely dice-less, if that's what you're looking for. I've noticed that there's far less of those than there are of dice or dice/card based TRPGs.

[tensai_oni]

Anything White Wolf, FATE, Legend of Wulin - just the tip of the iceberg.

In fact I don't remember the last time I rolled a d20 in a game. Even in Mutants and Masterminds, my groups always houserule to roll 2d10 instead. The houserule includes changed crit/natural "20" rules of course.

[Knaight]

To add another example to my previous post - there is a game called Dread. The core mechanic is a Jenga tower. That's how far afield RPGs get, avoiding a d20 is nothing.

[Lheticus]

There's a huge number, to the point where I'd almost consider the d20 a D&D and D&D offshoot quirk. Do you have any other preferences here? (sic)

I'd prefer a game that I would actually stand a decent chance of finding a local group for, so I suppose the most optimal suggestion would be the more "mainstream" non d20 TRPGs.

[A_Man]

Hero Games use d6s (which is one of the reasons I love their games. I have a ton of d6s floating around).

[holywhippet]

Anything White Wolf, FATE, Legend of Wulin - just the tip of the iceberg.


I'd second FATE as I'm currently playing through a Dresden Files game. When you make any kind of skill or ability check you roll four D6 dice - each dice has two blanks, two pluses and two minuses. You add the pluses, subtract the minuses and ignore the blanks then apply that to your skill level.

The catch with FATE is that it is very much designed for role players, not roll players or power gamers. You don't have XP or even money in game so to speak. You improve or modify your abilities when you reach milestones. I could in my game, for example, pick up some military grade body armor for my character to wear in order to absorb the damage from incoming bullets and other physical attacks. I won't do that because I'm playing a wizard, not a soldier.

[huttj509]

Shadowrun uses a lot of D6s.
Legend of the Five Rings uses up to 10 d10 (you get things like "roll 4 dice, keep the 2 highest, and add them together, with 10s exploding into a new kept die)
Mistborn uses D6s.

[Rhynn]

Are there any tabletop RPGs that DON'T involve a d20? That seems the simplest way to solve this concern.

It really isn't. If you use a die smaller than d20, you get a greater chance of the worst possible performance (rolling a 1). Only by using multiple dice (e.g. 3d6) do you weigh the results towards the averages and make the extremes (good and bad) less likely.

Anyway, from my library:


Artesia: Adventures in the Known World (d10-based Fuzion)
Burning Wheel (d6s)
Call of Cthulhu (d100 system, precursor/parallel to BRP)
Cyberpunk 2020 (d10-based, precursor to Fuzion)
Dark Heresy (etc.; d100 based)
Dragon Warriors (d20, 2d10, 3d6, etc., depending on what you're rolling for)
GURPS (3d6, best basic resolution mechanism there is)
HârnMaster (d100 system)
Legend of Five Rings (any edition; use d10s in a "roll and keep" system where your abilities and skills determine how many dice you roll and how many you keep)
Lord of the Rings (from Decipher; 2d6 system)
The One Ring (uses d6s and a special d12)
Qin - The Warring States (uses a 2d10 system with thematic peculiarities)
Rolemaster (d100 system)
RuneQuest (all editions; d100 system, precursor to BRP)
Sengoku (3d6 Fuzion system)
Shadowrun (d6 dice pools)
space 1889 (d6s)
The Riddle of Steel (d10 dice pools)
Traveller (2d6 based)
Twilight 2013 (multiple d20s; more skill = more dice, choose the best result, other dice under threshold increase success level)
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (1E or 2E; d100 based)
World of Darkness (d10 dice pools)


There's tons more, like Dread (with the jenga tower), Savage worlds and Fate (I don't recall off-hand which dice they use), Dungeon World, and so on.

[veti]

I think you may be focusing on the wrong question. There are plenty of systems that don't use d20s, but still inflict a significant chance of Abysmal Incompetence on the expert. Harnmaster and Rolemaster both have the same effect, even though they use percentages instead of d20s.

The only dice-based system I've played that avoids this issue is the d6-based Hero system. (Oh, and GURPS. But I've always hated GURPS.) But I'm sure there are plenty of others.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Just looking over at my shelf, I have a bunch of D&D (d20, doesn't fit what you're looking for), Exalted (d10), Call of Cthulhu (d100), Mouse Guard (d6), Don't Rest Your Head (d6), and Fate Accelerated Edition (FUDGE dice). As others have noted, d20 is kind of a non-standard standard... the only reason we think of it as standard is because D&D uses it and it's really the "go-to" game for most people, plus the d20 system became a good way to get your setting to a wider audience during the SRD-era.

Since your issue is with the idea of crippling critical failures, I can at the very least recommend Fate Core and Accelerated Editions. It still has the potential for crippling failure, but not with an unlucky. It takes certain types of players to make the game work, but it's very much based on consent as far as character consequences go. It does its best to encourage the idea that failure can be just as entertaining as success, both mechanically and philosophically, but it's ultimately down to the player for the most part. You have to agree to a compel of your aspect, which will always be disadvantageous to you, and you have leeway in accept penalties for failing a conflict when you concede.

I don't think Mouse Guard had crit fail rules, but I only ever played one session of it. I know it had a somewhat similar approach to conflict, where both parties would state their goals at the beginning of the conflict and then depending on how soundly the loser was beaten they'd both have to make concessions and reach a compromise.

Don't Rest Your Head uses the inevitable spectacular failure as a driving force in the gameplay, and it's a really interesting mechanic; basically, you have madness and tiredness, and you can increase them to become more competent at doing something but either of them goes too far you're done for. It won't come from a single unlucky die roll, though; it's a slow, steady spiral downwards.

Exalted I never got to play, sadly, so I can't comment on it. Same with CoC, but given it's Call of Cthulhu I'd be surprised if there wasn't any sort of crit fail mechanic.

[Prince Raven]

All of the Fantasy Flight Warhammer games are d100 based and Dungeon World is based on a 2d6 roll.

[Rakaydos]

I'll put in a vote for Star Wars: Edge of Empire. It has weird dice, but if you're not rolling any red dice, you cant completely fumble. (and you can theoretically get a crit for each yellow die you roll)

There's a lot of "you succede but something else goes wrong" or "you dont find it, but while you're looking you find..." involved in the dice mechanic they use. And no number juggling.

[Rhynn]

Harnmaster and Rolemaster both have the same effect, even though they use percentages instead of d20s.

Rolemaster is a given (you can fumble climbing, sneaking, or running and kill yourself, etc.), but HârnMaster? You're going to have to justify that somehow - Complete Failures aren't huge fumbles, and they're less likely (failed rolls with 5 or 0 for the ones are CFs) and not as catastrophic (e.g. you're not going to fling your sword away in combat).

Critical failure rules in general are really rare (there's mostly just Rolemaster and RuneQuest), but IMO they can be completely hilarious. Any RuneQuest player has awesome fumble stories (http://www.soltakss.com/fumbles.html) (like the time our Humakti faced a magical mirror-doppleganger, fumbled, cut his leg clean off, and the player immediately yells "Just evening out the odds!").

Obviously, that's takes a certain kind of attitude towards the game to work.

FWIW, basically every game I know that uses fumbles has less than the 5% chance you get in D&D if you use "natural 1 fumbles."

[BWR]

[
Critical failure rules in general are really rare (there's mostly just Rolemaster and RuneQuest), but IMO they can be completely hilarious. Any RuneQuest player has awesome fumble stories (http://www.soltakss.com/fumbles.html) (like the time our Humakti faced a magical mirror-doppleganger, fumbled, cut his leg clean off, and the player immediately yells "Just evening out the odds!").


First time we played MERP, very first combat, two guards: the first dismboweled himself, the other threw his sword at our feet in his eagerness to avenger his partner.

[Gamgee]

Warhammer 40k. Amazing stuff. :smallcool:

[Rhynn]

First time we played MERP, very first combat, two guards: the first dismboweled himself, the other threw his sword at our feet in his eagerness to avenger his partner.

:smallbiggrin:

Oddly, I don't have any notable RM/MERP fumble stories... mostly just awesome criticals. Out of the long-running party (6-8 years of play), one PC was one-handed after fighting an orc chieftain, a henchman was mute (fell into a pit, spike went through throat), and one PC was "killed" 3-4 times (brought back after life preservation and healing each time).

[Khedrac]

To add to to that list:

Amber - diceless
Lost Souls - D% mainly (and player only for combat - the GM didn't need to roll).

Note the Runequest did use D20s a lot - it is the dice for hit location determination. Most of the other games based on the same core system (e.g. Call of Cthulhu) don't use hit locations so rarely use the D20. The standard dice that the RQ rules did not use at all was the D12

[The Dark Fiddler]

Rolemaster is a given (you can fumble climbing, sneaking, or running and kill yourself, etc.), but HârnMaster? You're going to have to justify that somehow - Complete Failures aren't huge fumbles, and they're less likely (failed rolls with 5 or 0 for the ones are CFs) and not as catastrophic (e.g. you're not going to fling your sword away in combat).

Natural ones aren't supposed to be huge fumbles in any D&D system I'm familiar with, either, but plenty of GMs have decided that rolling a natural one in combat should be tantamount to accidentally critting your healer for quadruple damage.


Warhammer 40k. Amazing stuff. :smallcool:

Sure, unless you want to use a grenade (can jam and blow up in your hand) or be a psyker (can have your power fail and summon a hole in the warp that instantly kills you or have you get instantly possessed by a demon) :smalltongue:

[Prince Raven]

Sure, unless you want to use a grenade (can jam and blow up in your hand) or be a psyker (can have your power fail and summon a hole in the warp that instantly kills you or have you get instantly possessed by a demon) :smalltongue:

Those are some of the best parts of playing a 40k RPG.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Those are some of the best parts of playing a 40k RPG.

Oh, I enjoy them greatly. I mean, one of my favorite RPG moments over the six years I've been playing was when my Psyker burnt his hands off with a botched Bio Lightning. Since OP's problem was with crippling critical failures, though, I'm not sure suggesting a game where they're an integral part is the best idea.

[Rhynn]

The standard dice that the RQ rules did not use at all was the D12

Not to be insufferable, but RQ2 (the 1979-83 edition) pike damage is 1D12+1, great hammer is 1D12+2, and some monsters and spells no doubt use it. Now, RQ3 (the 1984 edition) did away with it (replacing it with 2D6 for weapons), mostly, although I wouldn't be surprised if it lurked somewhere outside of the core books (in large part because of the compatibility of the editions). Of course, MRQ and RQ6 brought it back.


be a psyker (can have your power fail and summon a hole in the warp that instantly kills you or have you get instantly possessed by a demon)

That (and similar rules in WFRP 2E) is an essential balancing factor, as well as a thematic thing for representing the setting as described. Not really the same thing.

[Prince Raven]

Oh, I enjoy them greatly. I mean, one of my favorite RPG moments over the six years I've been playing was when my Psyker burnt his hands off with a botched Bio Lightning. Since OP's problem was with crippling critical failures, though, I'm not sure suggesting a game where they're an integral part is the best idea.

They have fate points, they'll survive.

[Grim Portent]

Oh, I enjoy them greatly. I mean, one of my favorite RPG moments over the six years I've been playing was when my Psyker burnt his hands off with a botched Bio Lightning. Since OP's problem was with crippling critical failures, though, I'm not sure suggesting a game where they're an integral part is the best idea.

The 40k RPGs don't critically fail that often though, 1 in 100 is a lot, but it's a lot less than 1 in 20 (and it's often more fun in 40k).

My favorite crit fail was when I was playing a heavy weapons expert with an RPG Launcher, I carried it's ammo (about 40 grenades, frag and krak) in a backpack. We got shot at by a cultist with a heavy stubber loaded with incendiary ammunition. My character failed his dodge test, failed the agility test to not catch fire and then failed the agility test to put himself out. Now this character was tough as nails so he wasn't really hurt much by the bullet or the fire, but I was now rolling a d10 each round or my grenades would explode, that was when the party psyker decided to push his powers and kill the cultist with the heavy stubber. A few phenomena rolls later we were all floating in mid air, I was unconscious (still on fire) and the only person who wasn't disabled in some fashion or another was fighting three minor warp entities and therefore couldn't put me out. Good times... Good times. :smallbiggrin:

[neonchameleon]

I think you may be focusing on the wrong question. There are plenty of systems that don't use d20s, but still inflict a significant chance of Abysmal Incompetence on the expert. Harnmaster and Rolemaster both have the same effect, even though they use percentages instead of d20s.

The only dice-based system I've played that avoids this issue is the d6-based Hero system. (Oh, and GURPS. But I've always hated GURPS.) But I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Fudge and Fate both avoid dice based incompetence by tightening the variance a lot (4d3-8 is the effective mechanic of four Fudge/Fate dice) - and last time I checked, according to ENWorld's hot games indicator, Fate was second only to D&D. The Apocalypse World family also does by a very different method - the GM never rolls the dice, and all actions you roll for are under stress. Yes, you screw up - but incompetence as opposed to biting off more than you can chew is all GM interpretation; every roll comes with consequences, succeed or fail. (And a perfectly acceptable consequence for a "Read a sitch" check failure is "You spot the five assassins who were trying to sneak up, so they all aim at you. What do you do?")

[Airk]

So I think we have two distinct issues here:

#1) Critical failures. Most games don't have this. Even D&D doesn't have this, RAW, though as noted, inexplicably, many DMs seem to think that "You rolled a one LOL, HAHA, you cut off your own leg!" is a good houserule. Why this is has never made any sense to me, but I never understood "put money on free parking in Monopoly" so clearly people use rules I can't explain. Anyway, virtually NO systems have this rule for real. Of all the games I'm aware of, only Rolemaster (and it's derivatives) and, actually Old World of Darkness have 'critical failure' rules. (oWoD called it 'botch' and it basically happened when you had negative successes, IIRC).

#2) Large, linear spread of dice numbers. This is an issue with d20 systems, though it's actually more the result of the expected bonus relative to the target number vs the die size vs the probability distribution, rather than just the die size. To explain further, something tends to feel really random IF:

The random number spread is large RELATIVE to the bonus you are getting
AND
The probability curve is fairly flat.

D20 suffers from these issues a lot of the time, because a d20 is a big spread, and especially at lower levels, being "Good" at something will get you maybe a +8 bonus while someone who is "not good" at it will be looking at like +0/+1/+2 or so. Which means that the result of the die makes a bigger difference in the result of your skill test than whether you are "good" at something or not. If you switch to a more bell curve shaped distribution, either by using 3d6 or by using some sort of dice pool system, you'll discover that your results tend towards 'average for your character' far more often and you'll see far less of the "I rolled a 6 and he rolled a 16 and even though I'm super good at searching and he's a dope, he actually got a better result than I did." results that you get with D&D. (Note that percentile based systems have this same issue, but often avoid it by making the bonuses larger - if the difference between "you suck" and "you're good" is a 75% swing (+75 on d%) instead of a 45% swing (+7 on a d20) you'll find competence rises to the top much more often.)

I think at this point that folks have already enumerated about a chillion systems that don't suffer from this issue, but no one is going to be able to tell you what games you "have a decent chance to find a local group" with because, basically, there's d20 based systems... and everything else. You're far better off looking around at local groups and finding out what game they are playing than picking a game and trying to find someone playing it locally. Especially as basically EVERY system that ISN'T d20 solves the issues you have.

[LibraryOgre]

First to mind are Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings, Savage Worlds (there may be provisions for them in some cases), and some completely diceless games... Amber, ODE (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2013/08/ode-one-deck-engine.html), the old SAGA system, etc.


#1) Critical failures. Most games don't have this. Even D&D doesn't have this, RAW, though as noted, inexplicably, many DMs seem to think that "You rolled a one LOL, HAHA, you cut off your own leg!" is a good houserule. Why this is has never made any sense to me, but I never understood "put money on free parking in Monopoly" so clearly people use rules I can't explain. Anyway, virtually NO systems have this rule for real. Of all the games I'm aware of, only Rolemaster (and it's derivatives) and, actually Old World of Darkness have 'critical failure' rules. (oWoD called it 'botch' and it basically happened when you had negative successes, IIRC).


Money on free parking makes the game really swingy... someone who is doing poorly can hit free parking and suddenly unmortgage everything and be back in business.

[Airk]

First to mind are Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings, Savage Worlds (there may be provisions for them in some cases), and some completely diceless games... Amber, ODE (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2013/08/ode-one-deck-engine.html), the old SAGA system, etc.

Are these 'first to mind' for his "I might have a decent chance of finding a group playing this in my area" question? Because it starts out kinda looking that way and then gets weird.


Money on free parking makes the game really swingy... someone who is doing poorly can hit free parking and suddenly unmortgage everything and be back in business.

Right. Which makes a game that already takes too long and is too random even longer and more random. Therefore, it is a terrible rule. ;)

[Lheticus]

So I think we have two distinct issues here:

#1) Critical failures. Most games don't have this. Even D&D doesn't have this, RAW, though as noted, inexplicably, many DMs seem to think that "You rolled a one LOL, HAHA, you cut off your own leg!" is a good houserule. Why this is has never made any sense to me, but I never understood "put money on free parking in Monopoly" so clearly people use rules I can't explain. Anyway, virtually NO systems have this rule for real. Of all the games I'm aware of, only Rolemaster (and it's derivatives) and, actually Old World of Darkness have 'critical failure' rules. (oWoD called it 'botch' and it basically happened when you had negative successes, IIRC).

#2) Large, linear spread of dice numbers. This is an issue with d20 systems, though it's actually more the result of the expected bonus relative to the target number vs the die size vs the probability distribution, rather than just the die size. To explain further, something tends to feel really random IF:

The random number spread is large RELATIVE to the bonus you are getting
AND
The probability curve is fairly flat.

D20 suffers from these issues a lot of the time, because a d20 is a big spread, and especially at lower levels, being "Good" at something will get you maybe a +8 bonus while someone who is "not good" at it will be looking at like +0/+1/+2 or so. Which means that the result of the die makes a bigger difference in the result of your skill test than whether you are "good" at something or not. If you switch to a more bell curve shaped distribution, either by using 3d6 or by using some sort of dice pool system, you'll discover that your results tend towards 'average for your character' far more often and you'll see far less of the "I rolled a 6 and he rolled a 16 and even though I'm super good at searching and he's a dope, he actually got a better result than I did." results that you get with D&D. (Note that percentile based systems have this same issue, but often avoid it by making the bonuses larger - if the difference between "you suck" and "you're good" is a 75% swing (+75 on d%) instead of a 45% swing (+7 on a d20) you'll find competence rises to the top much more often.)

I think at this point that folks have already enumerated about a chillion systems that don't suffer from this issue, but no one is going to be able to tell you what games you "have a decent chance to find a local group" with because, basically, there's d20 based systems... and everything else. You're far better off looking around at local groups and finding out what game they are playing than picking a game and trying to find someone playing it locally. Especially as basically EVERY system that ISN'T d20 solves the issues you have.

This. Om12g this. You said what I was thinking only better, especially with point 2. The "enumerating of a chillion systems" that everyone else has done has helped vastly as well--I wasn't honestly even aware that non d20 TRPGs were a thing--case in point, the 40k RPGs talked about? I thought Warhammer 40 was exclusively a tabletop PvP game.

[Airk]

This. Om12g this. You said what I was thinking only better, especially with point 2. The "enumerating of a chillion systems" that everyone else has done has helped vastly as well--I wasn't honestly even aware that non d20 TRPGs were a thing--case in point, the 40k RPGs talked about? I thought Warhammer 40 was exclusively a tabletop PvP game.

Glad I had the right idea of the question then. :) And yes, there's at least one Warhammer 40k RPG, though I don't remember hearing anything particularly mechanically interesting about it.

But there are a couple of ways you can approach your dislike for games with these issues from here. Either you can rummage around and find a game that you like and try to get people to play it with you (neither part is necessarily very challenging, but both take time and some effort) or you can look around for people playing games that meet your criteria and then just play those games (Which still requires you to do the legwork of finding a group, but has the advantage of not requiring you to choose as a system and the disadvantage of you not being able to choose a system.)

I personally suggest both. Nose around. Find some games. A "few" have been mentioned here. If you're on a budget (most people are) you're probably going to be well served by seeking out "SRDs" (That's System Reference Documents, I believe) which are often available for free and can give you a good idea of the rules for a game, if not the specific fiddly bits (spell lists and the like may well be missing) or games that are available in a low cost PDF format. DriveThruRPG (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/) is a good source for those, and you can often get the core rules for a system for $15 or less (Sometimes a lot less.) Of course, this still leaves you with a MASSIVE selection these days, so you might want to ask around for more direction. And while you're learning about new games, search for gamers in your area and see what they are playing. Take it from there.

[Aedilred]

All of the Fantasy Flight Warhammer games are d100 based
Except WFRP3, mind. That uses a dice pool system with special dice that doesn't really fit neatly into the dn nomenclature. It's not d20, though.

WFRP3 is a bit weird, definitely the black sheep of that family.

[neonchameleon]

So I think we have two distinct issues here:

#1) Critical failures. Most games don't have this. Even D&D doesn't have this, RAW, though as noted, inexplicably, many DMs seem to think that "You rolled a one LOL, HAHA, you cut off your own leg!" is a good houserule. Why this is has never made any sense to me, but I never understood "put money on free parking in Monopoly" so clearly people use rules I can't explain. Anyway, virtually NO systems have this rule for real. Of all the games I'm aware of, only Rolemaster (and it's derivatives) and, actually Old World of Darkness have 'critical failure' rules. (oWoD called it 'botch' and it basically happened when you had negative successes, IIRC).

I'm a huge fan of the 4E Dark Sun critical failure rule.

In Dark Sun if you roll a 1 on your attack roll you may choose to reroll. If you choose not to you miss, and that's the end of it. If you choose to reroll and you fail, your weapon breaks (unless it's a metal weapon when it only breaks on a roll of 1-5). So you only take the critical failure if you've tried going for the extra reward. So it's player-determined and on a risk scale.

And WFRP 3E is more closely related to the FFG Star Wars games than to the rest of the Warhammer family.

[LibraryOgre]

Are these 'first to mind' for his "I might have a decent chance of finding a group playing this in my area" question? Because it starts out kinda looking that way and then gets weird.

I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel.


Right. Which makes a game that already takes too long and is too random even longer and more random. Therefore, it is a terrible rule. ;)

Yeah, Monopoly needs victory conditions other than "I'm sick of this."

[The Dark Fiddler]

Glad I had the right idea of the question then. :) And yes, there's at least one Warhammer 40k RPG, though I don't remember hearing anything particularly mechanically interesting about it.

The critical damage tables from Dark Heresy are interesting.

[Airk]

Yeah, Monopoly needs victory conditions other than "I'm sick of this."

The only way to win is to not play!


The critical damage tables from Dark Heresy are interesting.

I'm afraid I've passed the point when a system can be interesting because of its tables.

[Dorian Gray]

The first ones that spring to mind for me are Fate (because Fate is a really, really good system, which I think everyone should try out), and Shadowrun.
Of course, in Shadowrun you might not have enough dice- I've rolled more than thirty at once. Exploding sixes, folks! :smallbiggrin:

[veti]

Rolemaster is a given (you can fumble climbing, sneaking, or running and kill yourself, etc.), but HârnMaster? You're going to have to justify that somehow - Complete Failures aren't huge fumbles, and they're less likely (failed rolls with 5 or 0 for the ones are CFs) and not as catastrophic (e.g. you're not going to fling your sword away in combat).

I was addressing the "expert can fail many times in a row" effect, rather than "critical failures". A 5% probability is still a 5% probability, whether you roll it on a d20 or d%.

Personally, I really don't have an issue with this. Even an expert has off days, and if you think it can't happen even when you're really really good at something, that just means you've been lucky so far.


So I think we have two distinct issues here:

#1) Critical failures. Most games don't have this. Even D&D doesn't have this, RAW, though as noted, inexplicably, many DMs seem to think that "You rolled a one LOL, HAHA, you cut off your own leg!" is a good houserule.

Critical failures are the natural inverse of critical hits. 1st edition AD&D didn't have either, but IIRC Gygax noted in the text that the two go together, so if you have one, it's only natural to include the other.

The problem here is that, being houseruled, it's often ruled with no eye to balance. To get to the "cut off your own leg" stage (yes, I realise you're exaggerating somewhat for effect, but still...), you should have to roll multiple times in succession.

Let's consider a real-world skill that most of us are probably familiar with: driving. Imagine you've got a really strict GM, who makes one driving check per mile you travel; on a roll of 1, you have to take some kind of corrective action (adjust your speed, correct your lane, turn on your lights or wipers... whatever) under pressure conditions.

On a failure, you botch that action and are in danger of some kind of incident. Not yet an "accident" as such - it could be something like skidding out of control for a moment, damaging your tyres by running into a pothole or the kerb, getting flashed by a speed camera or red light camera - something like that. But there's still a saving throw standing between you and that outcome (most driving errors, thankfully, have no real consequence), so to actually suffer one of the above indignities, you have to botch three rolls in succession. If you're an expert driver, that's a 1 in 8000 mile event.

To get an actual crash - the sort of thing that endangers life and limb and results in insurance claims - for that, you'd have to fail another roll, making it a 1-in-160,000 mile event for the real expert.

Of course we've all experienced "rolling multiple 1s in succession" at the gaming table, but that's because we've all rolled about eight zillion d20s in our gaming careers. By the numbers, rolling multiple 1s in succession is - already sufficiently unlikely that it doesn't stretch 'suspension of disbelief' for me.

[Aedilred]

This. Om12g this. You said what I was thinking only better, especially with point 2. The "enumerating of a chillion systems" that everyone else has done has helped vastly as well--I wasn't honestly even aware that non d20 TRPGs were a thing--case in point, the 40k RPGs talked about? I thought Warhammer 40 was exclusively a tabletop PvP game.
There are, I think, four (or five if you count different editions of the same game separately) though they're not produced directly by Games Workshop.

There's been a Warhammer Fantasy RPG since the late 80s, although for much of that time it was on the down-low. Then in 2004-5 GW relaunched a new version (WFRP2), written by Green Ronin, through their own publishing arm. In about 2009 they finally produced a 40K version (Dark Heresy) which used largely the same d100 system although with some (much-needed) modifications to the combat mechanics and some tweaks to the thematic career system that if I didn't know better I'd say made it effectively class-based :smallwink:

Then almost immediately they closed down their roleplaying arm again and sold the licence to Fantasy Flight Games, who continued to produce Dark Heresy and have subsequently also done three more RPGs based on the same system but effectively at different levels of power engagement with the universe. In Dark Heresy you're like a low-level team of minions, in Rogue Trader you're an independent ship's crew, in Deathwatch you're Space Marines, and in Black Crusade I think you're Chaos-aligned. Dark Heresy has recently entered its second edition; I'm not sure how it differs from the first. At the same time as they took over the licence they pretty much stopped WFRP2 (basically printing the last book Green Ronin wrote, and a compendium) and went on to produce an entirely new version which is almost like a hybrid RPG/board game (it's weird... but ok). Fantasy Flight also handle GW-IP board games, although I think most of the GW ones they've done to date have been fantasy rather than 40K.

[Grim Portent]

Then almost immediately they closed down their roleplaying arm again and sold the licence to Fantasy Flight Games, who continued to produce Dark Heresy and have subsequently also done three more RPGs based on the same system but effectively at different levels of power engagement with the universe. In Dark Heresy you're like a low-level team of minions, in Rogue Trader you're an independent ship's crew, in Deathwatch you're Space Marines, and in Black Crusade I think you're Chaos-aligned. Dark Heresy has recently entered its second edition; I'm not sure how it differs from the first.

There's also Only War, which is based on the Imperial Guard.

[Rhynn]

The problem here is that, being houseruled, it's often ruled with no eye to balance. To get to the "cut off your own leg" stage (yes, I realise you're exaggerating somewhat for effect, but still...), you should have to roll multiple times in succession.

Nope, that literally happens in e.g. RuneQuest, and in Rolemaster you can kill or paralyze yourself by tripping while performing a moving maneuver.

[LibraryOgre]

Nope, that literally happens in e.g. RuneQuest, and in Rolemaster you can kill or paralyze yourself by tripping while performing a moving maneuver.

And a moving maneuver can include "Walking across the empty dance floor."

[Airk]

Critical failures are the natural inverse of critical hits. 1st edition AD&D didn't have either, but IIRC Gygax noted in the text that the two go together, so if you have one, it's only natural to include the other.

I disagree, because one is generally considered exciting, and the other is just a downer. Just because two things are mechanically similar does NOT mean that if one is in a game, the other must logically follow.



The problem here is that, being houseruled, it's often ruled with no eye to balance. To get to the "cut off your own leg" stage (yes, I realise you're exaggerating somewhat for effect, but still...), you should have to roll multiple times in succession.

Weren't we just on a 'these two things are mechanically similar' kick a minute ago? Why does one require you to fail five times in a row while the other one has an immediate effect? Oh, right, because one of them is no fun, so you want to avoid it.



Let's consider a real-world skill that most of us are probably familiar with: driving. Imagine you've got a really strict GM, who makes one driving check per mile you travel; on a roll of 1, you have to take some kind of corrective action (adjust your speed, correct your lane, turn on your lights or wipers... whatever) under pressure conditions.

On a failure, you botch that action and are in danger of some kind of incident. Not yet an "accident" as such - it could be something like skidding out of control for a moment, damaging your tyres by running into a pothole or the kerb, getting flashed by a speed camera or red light camera - something like that. But there's still a saving throw standing between you and that outcome (most driving errors, thankfully, have no real consequence), so to actually suffer one of the above indignities, you have to botch three rolls in succession. If you're an expert driver, that's a 1 in 8000 mile event.

That's pleasantly arbitrary, don't you think? Why would you even have a rule that works like this?

[veti]

Weren't we just on a 'these two things are mechanically similar' kick a minute ago? Why does one require you to fail five times in a row while the other one has an immediate effect? Oh, right, because one of them is no fun, so you want to avoid it.

Because "getting double dice damage with an attack" and "cutting your own leg off" are - not proportionate to one another, in terms of their game effect. A crit in D&D doesn't even have any particular effect on the enemy - it's just like landing two hits in one. It's not something you'll still be thinking about, and dealing with the consequences of, three sessions later.

If you're going to have a fumble system, I'd suggest something like:
1. Any 'natural 1' is a potential fumble.
2. Roll to confirm the fumble. If the number you roll is less than or equal to the number of limbs you're using to attack with, then congratulations, you fumble.
3. Roll on a separate table to determine the form of the fumble. This table would include things like "lose next attack" and "temporarily staggered". Only at the top of the table are results like "disarmed", or "reroll attack on friendly target".

So if you're using a greatsword, 1 attack in 200 will fumble, and maybe 1 fumble in 4 will be actively dangerous, as opposed to just momentarily annoying. To me and my playgroup, that level of risk is fun. As opposed to a 1 in 20 chance of crippling yourself, which is just stupid.


That's pleasantly arbitrary, don't you think? Why would you even have a rule that works like this?

Of course it's arbitrary. What other kind of d20 rule is there?

And the answer to "why?" is: because some events should be very rare, but still not impossible. Accidents do happen.

[Rhynn]

And a moving maneuver can include "Walking across the empty dance floor."

Not really, no. "Running across the empty dance floor" could be a moving maneuver if it mattered, since your success rate at a moving maneuver can be used to determine how fast you move.

But any kind of climbing, sneaking, etc. does count. You can theoretically trip and break your neck, paralyzing yourself, while trying to sneak. (The odds are astronomical, but weirdly enough, the harder it is to be undetected, the more likely it is you'll mess it up and injure yourself!)

For reference, most serious fumbles in moving maneuvers (in RMSS/RMFRP) are results under 0 (in a "d100 + skill + bonuses +/- difficulty" system where skill bonuses regularly exceed 100 at high levels), up to -200 or less... which usually requires you to roll 01-05 (which means you roll again and subtract the new result), and then possibly roll 96-00 (which means you roll again an add, which is bad if you opened with 01-05)... er, anyway, yeah, very tiny chance of actually paralyzing yourself unless you're attempting a maneuver that's Sheer Folly or Absurd (in which case you're kinda asking for it, and still need to get a low result).

... yes, it's an over-complicated game a lot of the time.


That's pleasantly arbitrary, don't you think? Why would you even have a rule that works like this?

I think GURPS actually describes regular tasks as something like this. With a mundane skill of Driving-10, you're pretty unlikely to cause dangerous situations, and then you're pretty likely to come out of those situations fine, because of multiple rolls.

Generally, I just prefer systems where you only roll when a dangerous situation occurs to begin with, but I can see the value in a system that creates content by simulating the chance of accidentally messing up something fairly routine and causing an accident.

In e.g. a zombie survival game, getting into a car accident on a rain-slick road can be absolutely great adventure fodder: now you need a new car (or spare parts), medical attention, and are stuck in the wilderness and have to find shelter. In that kind of game, I'd absolutely require rolls for routine-but-risky things (but something like, e.g., 1 roll per 4-8 hours of driving, depending on circumstances).

[Airk]

Because "getting double dice damage with an attack" and "cutting your own leg off" are - not proportionate to one another, in terms of their game effect. A crit in D&D doesn't even have any particular effect on the enemy - it's just like landing two hits in one.

Rather depends on what edition you're playing, actually. So...


It's not something you'll still be thinking about, and dealing with the consequences of, three sessions later.

Depending on the situation, that could go either way for either type. But the question is... why have you created a ridiculous system that allows for this level of stupid extreme failure instead of doing what was suggested and creating a mirror for the critical hit rules and just saying "If you critical fumble by rolling a 1, you lose your next standard action as you recover."?



If you're going to have a fumble system, I'd suggest something like:
1. Any 'natural 1' is a potential fumble.
2. Roll to confirm the fumble. If the number you roll is less than or equal to the number of limbs you're using to attack with, then congratulations, you fumble.
3. Roll on a separate table to determine the form of the fumble. This table would include things like "lose next attack" and "temporarily staggered". Only at the top of the table are results like "disarmed", or "reroll attack on friendly target".

See, part of the elegance of the critical hit rules is that they don't involve four rolls and a table.



Of course it's arbitrary. What other kind of d20 rule is there?

The good kind?



And the answer to "why?" is: because some events should be very rare, but still not impossible. Accidents do happen.

And you know what? Virtually no one gets into a car accident without their being some sort of extenuating circumstance. It's not like there's just a 1 in 8000 chance that you will drive off the road when no one else is around and the weather is fine. You're wasting a bunch of rolls on something that is not fun, doesn't have any sort of meaningful analogue in reality, and doesn't contribute anything to the game.

If, on the other hand, you are as Rhynn suggested, playing a game where bad things happening seemingly at random is part of the theme, then you might want to invest in a system like this, except you'd still want to make it less intrusive, and tables are usually an awful idea.

[veti]

And you know what? Virtually no one gets into a car accident without their being some sort of extenuating circumstance. It's not like there's just a 1 in 8000 chance that you will drive off the road when no one else is around and the weather is fine. You're wasting a bunch of rolls on something that is not fun, doesn't have any sort of meaningful analogue in reality, and doesn't contribute anything to the game.

There are always "extenuating circumstances". When you drive, do you always, 100% of the time, make sure you're calm, relaxed, well fed and well rested, clean your windscreen, check your oil, brakes, lights and tyre pressure before you start, keep both hands on the wheel, eyes firmly ahead, refrain from talking to anyone, thinking about anything but the road and the car...? Of course people have accidents under all conditions.

But you know what? If you don't like the idea, don't play it. All I ask is that you refrain from insinuating that those who do, are playing the game wrong.

[Rhynn]

There are always "extenuating circumstances". When you drive, do you always, 100% of the time, make sure you're calm, relaxed, well fed and well rested, clean your windscreen, check your oil, brakes, lights and tyre pressure before you start, keep both hands on the wheel, eyes firmly ahead, refrain from talking to anyone, thinking about anything but the road and the car...? Of course people have accidents under all conditions.

In short, a die roll is a perfect randomizer for all the million things that could go wrong that are impossible to track in play.

[TuggyNE]

In short, a die roll is a perfect randomizer for all the million things that could go wrong that are impossible to track in play.

It would be perfect, you mean, except that the probabilities are seriously out of whack, which is one thing that is rather frustratingly ignored by most proponents of critical fumble systems. A 1/20, or 1/400, or even 1/8000 chance in normal conditions (i.e., no more than one or two such miscellaneous random problems, if that) is simply not supported by actual accident rates; instead, there is almost always some confluence of multiple far more serious bad conditions. And those actually are worth tracking, since they are things like nausea, distraction, bad weather, and so forth.

I wouldn't complain about this, except that it's usually used as some sort of justification for the rules, when it's anything but. Claiming "well, accidents happen sorta kinda randomly, therefore a 5% chance of something bad on this table is reasonable" is just aggravating, and conflating "happens 11.2 times in a million hours*" with "happens to one person after a few hours of effort" under the same category of "very rare" is similarly irritating.

*General Aviation fatal accident rates in 2004, to pick some arbitrary example of a very .

[Rhynn]

It would be perfect, you mean, except that the probabilities are seriously out of whack, which is one thing that is rather frustratingly ignored by most proponents of critical fumble systems. A 1/20, or 1/400, or even 1/8000 chance in normal conditions (i.e., no more than one or two such miscellaneous random problems, if that) is simply not supported by actual accident rates; instead, there is almost always some confluence of multiple far more serious bad conditions. And those actually are worth tracking, since they are things like nausea, distraction, bad weather, and so forth.

If the odds were too small, it would, in fact, be completely worthless for producing random accidents that generate content for playing, because it would be so irrelevantly unlikely to happen. Something like, say, a 1/100 chance per "leg" of a drive (whatever distance that happens to be) of some kind of accident is actually useful, and saves you trying to track how worn down the wheels are, how badly the engine needs maintenance, whether it's raining or not, how likely a small animal is to run across the road, etc.

If I want a system that produces playable accidents, the odds probably have to be considerably higher than the real rate of that accident (unless it's a really freaking common accident to begin with, I guess, like the chances of falling off a trapeze when you've never walked on one before, or whatever), or they'll realistically never happen in most games.

[TuggyNE]

If I want a system that produces playable accidents, the odds probably have to be considerably higher than the real rate of that accident (unless it's a really freaking common accident to begin with, I guess, like the chances of falling off a trapeze when you've never walked on one before, or whatever), or they'll realistically never happen in most games.

Well, naturally. "Realistically never happen" is, in fact, quite correct, so, as long as that is fully recognized and accepted as a flaw of the system, that's OK. I don't consider that acceptable myself, but, you know, different strokes for different folks.

But, if you're trying to get someone to use it who doesn't consider that an acceptable break from reality, it would be pretty tacky to pretend (even unwittingly) that it's anything but a break from reality for the purposes of drama or comedy or artificial danger or whatever it is. And, although you personally, Rhynn, are generally pretty sane and reasonable and would presumably not indulge in this, it's this latter mistake that I've seen a lot in other cases.

TL/DR: When considering a fumble system, ask yourself whether you want a system for generating playable accidents, or a system that represents the rate of accidents in a playable way. One of those will give you e.g. natural 1 confirmed with natural 1 and roll on a percentile table, the other will get you "01-00: Nothing special happens".

So yeah, rant over hopefully? :smallredface:

[Prince Raven]

There is already a critical fumble in D&D when you roll a natural one on an attack.
It's called "you missed".

[Airk]

All I ask is that you refrain from insinuating that those who do, are playing the game wrong.

Wait wait wait. Are we supposed to refrain from commenting on the quality of other people's house rules? If I decide to write a house rule where I eliminate hitpoints and if you get hit, you die, no questions, are people supposed to give me a hug and tell me how great it is that I'm creatively expressing myself through the game or something?

In any event, when I said "Extenuating circumstances" I mean - factors outside the driver's control. Like other drivers. And weather. Not dirty windshields. Or even fatigue, really.

[nedz]

Every LARP system I've ever seen.

[SimonMoon6]

Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG uses 2d10, not as percentile dice but as "add them together" for a result of 2-20. Except the dice also "explode" (I think that's the modern term) when you roll doubles (other than double 1's which is an automatic failure), so you can keep adding more and more to your die rolls.

This has the effect that (1) automatic failures are rare, being only a 1% chance as opposed to D&D's 5% chance, (2) the probabilities are weighted towards middle-ish numbers, as opposed to a d20's flat probabilities, and (3) anything can happen, though the chance of it happening might be very small.

[Knaight]

I'd prefer a game that I would actually stand a decent chance of finding a local group for, so I suppose the most optimal suggestion would be the more "mainstream" non d20 TRPGs.

There's two main options here.
1) Fairly mainstream non d20 TRPGs - this is a bit of a crapshoot, but something like GURPS.
2) Fairly simple non d20 TRPGs - basically, these games have much simpler mechanics than D&D does. The players don't actually need to know them ahead of time, and they can be explained quickly. For instance Savage Worlds Explorer Edition has maybe 3% the word count of D&D core (It's over 100 pages, but the pages are sized like a small paper back). Fudge is 107 pages, but the core rules have been condensed into 4. So on and so forth.

I would recommend option 2, unless you particularly like more complex games.

[The Dark Fiddler]

There is already a critical fumble in D&D when you roll a natural one on an attack.
It's called "you missed".

That's a normal failure.

[Rhynn]

That's a normal failure.

Not exactly. If you've got an attack bonus of +30 and are attacking an opponent with AC 25, you still miss if you roll a 1. That's the "critical failure" / "fumble." (Doesn't apply with skill checks, does apply with saves.)

[Lheticus]

I would just like to quickly say that I've found everything TuggyNE has said here to be awesome. (On the off-chance that he'll sig-quote this) :P

[Airk]

Not exactly. If you've got an attack bonus of +30 and are attacking an opponent with AC 25, you still miss if you roll a 1. That's the "critical failure" / "fumble." (Doesn't apply with skill checks, does apply with saves.)

As an aside, I've always found this kinda randomly inconsistent. Why is possible to critical fail an attack roll but not a skill check? Aren't they basically the same thing? (Saves I can kindof see omitting because frankly, saving throws are just weird and turn everything about D&D on its head - they're basically the only "defensive" roll in the whole system.)

[Ravens_cry]

Savage Worlds use d20 in a very, very small number of places, rolling randomly on some tables for example, but you could emulate that with a d100 in increments of 5.

[Rhynn]

As an aside, I've always found this kinda randomly inconsistent. Why is possible to critical fail an attack roll but not a skill check? Aren't they basically the same thing? (Saves I can kindof see omitting because frankly, saving throws are just weird and turn everything about D&D on its head - they're basically the only "defensive" roll in the whole system.)

Well, "1 always fails" is a corollary to "20 always succeeds," and "20 always succeeds" would give you stupid results on skill tests (especially if you're using the Epic Level rules): a 5% chance to succeed at any impossible task seems sillier than a 5% chance to strike one blow that rings true. It feels much more theoretically possible to inflict a bit of damage to a dragon despite its steely scales than to open the best-locked door in the world by jiggling the handle.

[Airk]

Well, "1 always fails" is a corollary to "20 always succeeds," and "20 always succeeds" would give you stupid results on skill tests (especially if you're using the Epic Level rules): a 5% chance to succeed at any impossible task seems sillier than a 5% chance to strike one blow that rings true. It feels much more theoretically possible to inflict a bit of damage to a dragon despite its steely scales than to open the best-locked door in the world by jiggling the handle.

I suppose it's the binary nature of skill checks that makes this the case. Though I personally would also support a rule where if 20+your bonuses wouldn't succeed, you're not allowed to roll. :P

Clearly, I am no friend to randomness.

[TuggyNE]

I would just like to quickly say that I've found everything TuggyNE has said here to be awesome. (On the off-chance that he'll sig-quote this) :P

How could I refuse? :smalltongue: (Although it will have to go in my quotebox, I think; there is very little room in my actual sig. :smallfrown:)