House Rule: Fumble Roll

[Thirsty Viking]

I was working on the fumble rules today,  And the objections some had with the current system.  This was my possible solution,  Please post your thoughts about it.

[Thirsty Viking]

Optional House Rule:

Ok For all who don't like fumbles as they stand currently here is an option that I devised for your objections and mine... I'll probably stick with the book but this isn't too bad.

The objections I remember:

As number of dice goes up, sometimes % of fumbles goes up
As number of dice goes up the ratio of Fumbles to Failures goes up a lot.
As TN's increase, Fumble rates reduce under method suggested of More 1's than any other number (It should be easier to fumble on hard TN's than easy TN's)

FIRST DRAFT
When a charachter Fails any role He Rolls (TN/2)d (rounded UP minmum 2 d) and fumbles if 2+ ones are rolled. After a charachter is told his target number he may elect to declare and use fewer dice to reduce his chance of fumble if he fails.... IN COMBAT these must be declared and spent from his combat pool before he rolls....

For Each die so spent detrmine fumble as if the TN had been 3 lower.

This now gives odds of a FUMBLE as dependant on the Charachter degree of caution and difficulty indicated by TN. The Fumbles will thus be a constant ratio to his FAILURE % for a given TN, and independant of # of dice he is rolling. this also addresses being fumble proof if only one die is rolled

The major Downside is you add another roll to determine fumbles if he fails to get any success...

Code Select Expand


TN/2  Fumble % of Failures
002   1.0%
003   2.8%
004   5.2%
005   8.1%
006   11.4%
007   15.0%
008   18.7%
009   22.5%
010   26.4%
011   30.3%
012   34.1%
013   37.9%
014   41.5%
015   45.1%


Any comments? I think this addresses all issues raised... like any compromise I already hear the screams.... :-)

[Thirsty Viking]

Optional House Rule:

Code Select Expand


TN/2  Fumble % of Failures
005   8.1%
006   11.4%


One thing that I really like in this method that i just thought of is it differentiates between TN=10 and TN=11  !
Odds of success are the same in RoS for these TN's  
This now gives them a difference in the Rates at which you fumble if you fail.

[Durgil]

I was thinking about the fact that fumbles can't occur if you only roll one dice.  What do you think about having a character roll the die again if the result is a "1," and if they roll another "1" then they fumbled?  I guess that would maintain the same odds of fumbling as if they rolled two dice.  Maybe on a result of "1" the character would then roll two dice and fumbles on a double "1."  Either way, the reroll, no matter what the result, can't change the failure into a success the same as a stacked die roll can't result in a fumble.

I do like the idea about giving the players the option of rolling fewer dice to minimize their chance of fumbling, I think it dimonstrates taking ones time to produce a better product, particularly when performing extended rolls.  Otherwise, I think I'll continue using the current system as is.

[Thirsty Viking]

I was thinking about the fact that fumbles can't occur if you only roll one dice.  What do you think about having a character roll the die again if the result is a "1," and if they roll another "1" then they fumbled?  

Thats a good solution to the fumble proof single die roll.

I do like the idea about giving the players the option of rolling fewer dice to minimize their chance of fumbling, I think it dimonstrates taking ones time to produce a better product, particularly when performing extended rolls.  Otherwise, I think I'll continue using the current system as is.

I agree with you.  The system as it is runs elegantly.  But some people were looking for a solution.  I just offered this as a preferable alternative to the methods I had seen posted.  Or at least as a basis from which they can tweak to their personal style.  I prefer the single roll.  When I start running on a regular basis this week, i'll have a better idea how often failures occur, and therefore how big a deal the second roll becomes.
Any way it addresses some of the odd mathematical objections that had been raised without adding new ones.

[Lance D. Allen]

I've only seen a fumble happen twice, and it was the biggest fluke you'd ever see. One was on a Total Evasion (TN 4, remember) with 9 dice.. Not a single friggin' success, and two 1's. The other was even more absurb, against a TN of 3 (I don't remember the roll exactly, but I do remember the guy got mutilated a few seconds later)

[Mike Holmes]

Looks like an effective method. But it does require that additional roll. Given that failures are rare, however, it probably wouldn't be to much of a hassle. And it would be a fun roll with lots of tension (a fumble coule be the end).

I'd play with it. But I'll keep on looking for that one roll solution, as well. :-)

Mike

[Thirsty Viking]

for one roll implementation ....   hmmm  if more than TN/2 dice are being rolled...  you could have TN/2 of them be one color ....  thus there would be only one roll....  altenatively you could add dice of a different color if the player has fewer dice.  This rolls them at the same time.  But you have to adjust dice selection.  Not sure the two roll methode wouldn't be better implemented than this.