How do you like to handle fumbles? Not at all? Disaster? Situational?

I used to use the rule that a fumbler missed their next turn, but eventually came around to not really liking that. Missing a turn on top of a failed attack roll felt like rubbing salt in the wound. I rather just consider a "1" an automatic failure and leave it at that.

For me, 1 is a failure, unless it's dramatic or cinematic, like falling off of a bridge.

Although in my homebrew, 1 for spell casting is extra bad.

Fumbles are great! I like them dramatic. I like quick and swingy combat, too, and interesting fumbles run with that. They are a great way to inject strange and unpredictable events into combat.

I try to have the fumble relevant. Axe-wielding attacker against a guy with a wooden shield? Maybe the axe gets stuck in the shield instead of sundering it. Oh, look, now we might get to do an opposed strength roll. I might ask the affected player for an idea.

Lots of games have very tight combat systems. An open fumble rule is the system admitting that it can't cover all the weird things that could happen.

Tables are fine too (hello DCC), but I find them a little hit and miss. Sometimes the result just isn't relevant.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 25, 2021, 06:01:36 PMI rather just consider a "1" an automatic failure and leave it at that.

This is what I do as well.

I keep the fumbles rather mild but let them happen on the natural 1 in a d20-based system.  So mild that some of them are only color text.  Fumble your initiative roll?  You go absolutely last, after everyone else.  Which really isn't all that different than going very late in the order.  You not only missed, it was embarrassing how it happened.  Frequently, your opponents laugh at you.  It can have some teeth if the circumstances fit, but even then I keep it a rather mild gnawing instead of a T-Rex taking your head off.

I kind of think that the fumbles should be set at the level where the players can laugh and enjoy it when it happens.  The mild ones work for my current players.  I've played with groups that thought that rolling on a chart where most of the results finished off your character in spectacular ways was funny.  With such a group, I'm fine with those more deadly outcomes.  If it's just slowing down play and no one finds it amusing, by all means drop 'em.

I'm good with some crazy unexpected things happening in combat - but I prefer to handle those as random events rather than as skill rolls.

I really hate having fumbles - especially in non-combat, at least as they are often implemented. The idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.

My homebrew system doesn't have Fumbles for combat; if you roll a 1, it's no different from rolling any other number (save 20, which is a crit). The idea is that if you can roll high enough to hit someone on a 1, you've earned it.

I've got skills on a Roll Under d20 basis. 20 is an automatic failure, representing some error or some outside force messing up your skill check. Say there's a power surge when you're hacking into something or a spontaneous drive by shooting that makes you fumble when you're parkouring over a roof. Your skill modifiers can go up past 20, however, and I have a rule (inspired by the Roguelike ADOM) that if you have at least 16 Skill Ranks in a skill, you get to roll thrice to see if you succeed. So the minimum failure chance is 1 in 8000.

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 07:07:16 PM
I'm good with some crazy unexpected things happening in combat - but I prefer to handle those as random events rather than as skill rolls.

I really hate having fumbles - especially in non-combat, at least as they are often implemented. The idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.

Indeed an expert will not totally botch it 5% of the time. I do fumbles on skill rolls, but I attribute them to narrative or just bad luck. Fumble a tracking test? Looks like the lord's men just happen to stomp around here as they were looking for you destroying even the most obvious tracks. Also, I don't call for rolls unless failure is serious or at least interesting, so fumbles are less than 5% of skill use.

I hate fumbles  because they tend to punish only martial characters,  and higher level ones more than low level.

1 as an autofail, yes.

I chance in 20 is too high for fumbles. One of the reasons I like Runequest is that higher skills give lower chances to fumble. And I like the Runequest combat table. That said, I completely agree with jhkim below.

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 07:07:16 PMThe idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2021, 07:07:16 PM
I'm good with some crazy unexpected things happening in combat - but I prefer to handle those as random events rather than as skill rolls.

I really hate having fumbles - especially in non-combat, at least as they are often implemented. The idea of trained experts looking laughably stupid 5% of the time fails believability for me. In many games, it had made the PCs seem like laughable clowns - because with a lot of rolls there are generally a bunch of fumbles.

Agreed. The proper % to make PCs look like laughable clowns is 0%.

With d20 a 1 is a crit fail and I let the player describe it because their version tends to be more forgiving than what I had in mind allowing them to recover from it quickly.

The problem with additional bad consequences on 1 (except usual auto-miss) — is fighters' multiple attacks. It's kinda weird when skilled soldier have a greater chance of breaking his weapon, injuring himself (or whatever else a fumble table dictates) due to his 2-3 attacks/round, than an unskilled peasant with one attack/round.

So, while automatic miss on 1 might be OK, I wouldn't use anything else on top of it.

I do use the 1= automatic fail in my games, and reserve the right to narrate a fumble. Most times its a simple save or drop your weapon, or you lose your footing, lose your dex bonus on next initiative. Something minor, but with enough impact to make a player gasp when a NAT 1 comes up.

I use it for skill checks as well. Last time a NAT 1 happened was on a DEX check as a player was attempting to jump onto a moving hovercraft. He failed and face planted into the water. Funnily enough, the next player on her initiative asked if she could use the other player as a stepping stone to launch herself onto the hovercraft. I of course granted it, and she made the check with ease. It's created a story that is growing legs, and creating an interesting character dynamic.

Quote from: Vladar on October 26, 2021, 06:32:04 AM
It's kinda weird when skilled soldier have a greater chance of breaking his weapon, injuring himself (or whatever else a fumble table dictates) due to his 2-3 attacks/round, than an unskilled peasant with one attack/round.

Good point.