>roll >critical failure >roll >critical failure >roll

>5 critical failures in a row on an attack
>My fancy magical sword I nearly died to get explodes, I lose a bunch of health and suddenly I'm a paladin who's only been using greatswords stuck shanking stuff with a mundane dagger

File: 1474914944260.jpg (105KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 900x900px

>critical failure
>"your sword breaks lmao"

File: julius-kieser-waning-hope.png (741KB, 1688x518px) Image search: [Google]

741KB, 1688x518px

>Using critical failure rules
>"Haha, I love it when the wacky things happen! SO RANDOM LOL :^)"

>>52447945
Got attacked by some fish people while trying to cross a river by carefully hopping from stone to stone. Need to move to the next rock to help out a party member. Utterly fail on the Acrobatics check, fall into the water instead. Try to get back up, roll 1. Can't get up, flailing in water holding on to the rock for my dear life. Try again next turn, roll 1. Try again next turn, roll 1. The party is in trouble and the Sorcerer spends all high level spell slots. Try again next turn, roll 5. Still can't get up, but realize the water is shallow enough to stand in....

>>52450842
It would be fine if using a system with 3d6 skill checks, since the critical failures would actually be rare enough to justify the extraordinarily 'wacky' events.

But with d20 literally 5% of the time is just too much for critical fail rules

>>52447945
>Played VtM last night
>our master rolls combat rolls for NPCs openly
>NPC glass cannon makes a win-or-die roll on massive pannalty
>Rolls successes on all 9 dices, 7 of them - critical
>Splatters our strongest cobatant accross the wall
>His stunning success inspires his goons and they kick our asses

>>52450842
>>52450960
Crit fail doesn't have to be anything insane.
At our table, it just meant that, no matter how good your stats were, you failed. Nothing wacky, just complete and total failure.
And before you ask, no, nat 20 wasn't always success, it was treated the same as a 19, just, you know, 1 higher.

>>52450960
My group normally uses the "20 is an automatic hit, 1 is an automatic miss" rule, but no more complicated than that. Even the greatest swordsman ever sometimes misses, whilst even a complete novice can get lucky.

>>52447945
It happened once on my table.
The artificer had to take the next short rest to recalibrate his gun, for it was shooting 5ft to the left.

>>52451204
But what about outside of combat?
If I roll to tell a god that I'm also a god in your campaign, and get a 20 on my bluff roll, does that = instant success, even though the numbers say that shouldn't be possible.

>>52451253
You convincingly bluff the deity that you have extremely convincing delusions of grandeur.

Time to change out your dice. Remember this though, for every 1 rolled on a d20 someone else rolled a 20. So you just allowed some random dude somewhere else get 5 nat 20's in a row.

> that player who's fine otherwise but takes bad rolls personally and will spend the whole session/day sulking

>>52451311
What if I'm specced into bluff, and roll a 1 with a retarded kid who has the lowest WIS stat possible in a "sentient" creature?
Does your group go by the numbers, or just say that bad luck means the kid figures out my ploy.

>>52451382
Our group just laughs as your character is trying to literally steal candy from a retarded baby. Then eventually kick you from the game as you continue to be an insufferable dipshit.

>>52447945
>use 2d10 checks
>rolling the lowest possible result is a crit fail, with a confirmation roll to determine the degree of fuck-my-shit-up
>on that specific initiative check, the whole party failed miserably, and get jumpscared to the point of just tripping over a bunch of rocks at the same time while being ambushed by bandits
>the chances for this were 1:100 000 000

we laughed for like 5 minutes, so did the bandits which gave an extra turn to let the fight start at even ground

>>52451382
The obvious solution is for your DM to stop being autistic and not make you roll for trivial shit.

>>52451428
Yeah, but before they kick him out, does he succeed or no?

>>52451428
>ignore the rules
>'hey you're ignoring the rules"
>'shut up GET OUT GET OUTTTT OF THE GAME"

>>52451428
>It's literally impossible that lying to a retarded kid could possibly serve the needs of the group

>>52451478
No. The kid gets distracted by a butterfly and wanders off mid-conversation.
>>52451482
We are kicking someone who wants to be a contrarian asshat.

>>52451520
It is possible, but extremely unlikely. Like 1/10,000 likely.

>>52451553
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you not know how many shows have those kinds of moments?

>>52451600
What the fuck kind of games are you playing where you re-use urban life comedy show plots in a TTRPG?

>>52451628
It's not an unlikely scenario whatsoever, nor is it one limited to comedy shows. Children are all over the fucking place, and one of them just might end up seeing you do some illegal shit, and maybe you just happen to be playing a character who wouldn't immediately murder the kid right.

>>52451689
And that kid happens to also be the town retard that says so much crazy stuff nobody even listens to him? You're creating a scenario that's already solved.

>>52451724
That's irrelevant. I'm not going to play the "but what if the scenario was actually like THIS" game with you.

>>52451628
Here's one off the top of my head. You are trying to sneak into the lord's manor. His spoiled child finds you and asks you why you aren't wearing a uniform.
Bam.
Second scenario: you are hiding in the witch's home and hide under a pile of toys. You find yourself face to face with a gigantic child. How do you convince him that you're not intruders?
Bam
Third scenario: You are preparing to steal an artifact from a museum. You are sneaking around a restricted area when you come across a group of kids who have wandered from their field trip. What do?
Bam bam bam.

It's not hard to think of a scenario where this is useful.

>>52451689
Adding to this:
>Maybe you're in an evil campaign, and you're using the kid to manipulate someone
>Convince the kid to do something as a distraction
>Maybe there's some shit going down, and you decide to tell him everything will be alright, but you don't honestly believe that, so you have to bluff that you do believe it
>Lie to the kid about something that happened to someone he cares about
>"Yeah Billy, you sure can be a wizard someday."
>Trying to keep him away from something dangerous/prevent him from doing something bad by telling him spiders will eat him if he does it, or something like that
>>52451724
If your DM would add in a retarded kid and then have that retarded kid serve no purpose other than to be retarded, your DM sucks.

Sure. Let the guy skilled in fishing never NOT catch a fish. Let he guy skilled in fighting never NOT hit. Let the guy skilled in X never NOT succeed.

In the games which I partake in, regarding combat at least, we've stuck to the rules that a natural 20 is an automatic hit and a natural 1 is an automatic miss. Although, we also play with critical success/failure cards, which can be quite entertaining at times. In regards to skill checks, we treat a natural 20 as a result of 30, and a natural 1 as a result of -10 to any roll. I quite like the rules regarding skill checks, its lead to some entertaining moments.

>>52451785
The "bam"s make it sound like you're suggesting just shooting the kid.

>>52451951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_fcdP0UVqw

>>52451951
Well, that's what I forced to do because somehow the retarded kid saw through my lie

>>52451895
In one game I played at a convention the GM insisted on using those cards regardless of the roll. Despite the fact that they were clearly only meant for combat (they had categories based on the type of damage dealt). So someone failed on a disable device check and he pulled one of those cards. It took five fucking minutes to resolve that one roll because he could not understand the idea that picking a lock doesn't do any kind of damage, and even after I said, "none of them makes sense, but piercing is less nonsensical than the others" he didn't like her being staggered for three rounds because that kind of condition doesn't matter outside of combat.

>>52447945
Wow, how did you manage to sum up my love life in a single OP, OP?

>inb4 >>>/r9k/