DM Gripes thread

The last one was a success, let's try for another.

>Players get upset when NPCs show any degree of competence.
>Right on down to 'being able to do the job that PCs hired them to do.'
>Reaction to this is usually to murder the offending "scene stealing" NPC

>Players who don't understand that their actions have consequences, and that if they betray, attack, or insult someone, that person will likely dislike them intensely otherwise.
>Players who get upset if monsters use sensible tactics, or run away from a fight they're losing.
>Actually, just in general, players who think that the world is there to fellate them and that NPC motivation should be parsed in terms of how the PC is likely to react.

>ops who post pics for ants

Why is Sipderman hitting that jew?

>constantly remind players that in my game there are some monsters that are too powerful for them to handle, so if shit is going south retreating is a good option
>begin fighting said powerful monster.
>pcs start dropping after a few turns.
>don't retreat.
>players get mad.

i'm dming 5e for first timers and i feel like my players are going to get mad at me if i don't pull any punches
>b-but our characters took so long to make!

>Make an arrangement with a faction
>Decide to go murderhobo and attempt to kill them when they fufill their end of the bargain
>Surprise, it doesnt go well for them
This isnt even the first time this group did this. First time half the party died. At least the last time they ran for it, and now I can incorporate that loose thread in the campaign

I just want to vent this

>Players enter town control by Fascist Empire
>Looking for criminal contact to obtain a magic item
>Find out Crown Prince is in town on a tour of peace
>Rebels ambush his entourage and begin killing soldiers and civilians who get in the way
>Party decides to jump in
>Except one
>He starts killing soldiers too
>Shields rebel attackers from party's spells
>I try to alter his course by having rebels also attacking him in the chaos of the melee
>He keeps killing soldiers, and protecting rebels
>"The Empire is evil" is his only reasoning

Maybe I'm the asshole, and maybe I could have explained things more clearly. Maybe I should have straight up said that German doesn't mean Nazi. I'm sure I could have done a better job, and as it stands I did my best to keep the entire session from falling apart, and everyone seems to have had fun. But I never even entertained the thought that one player would just decided to work against the party.

Related to
I have established that there are both monsters/enemies and NPCs (mostly friendly to the party) who are drastically more powerful than the PCs at this point in time. Two of my players are constantly antagonizing these NPCs then get upset when they're just murdered outright, especially since their own party won't defend them after being so stupid.

This is literally just them having video game mentality. They've been conditioned to believe that a game world is supposed to revolve around the player and that they should be able to do whatever they want without the NPCs really reacting or giving a shit.

This also leads into why PCs tend to just plain not retreat; they're totally and completely unused to the idea that a game could be paced in such a way where there's an encounter they can lose.

They don't understand that it's not an archaic way of simulating a video game, it's a totally different thing in its own right.

I don't think that's true. I think it's less people thinking their video games are real, and more people getting invested into their own characters. in these sorts of games, people start to identify with their own character because you're speaking for them, all of their actions are one-to-one with that you describe, and even your mistakes have realistic consequences. So when someone says that an enemy is pretty tough, you don't hear "It's too strong for you to kill", you hear "It's gonna be badass when you kill this guy".

Video games aren't ruining your tabletops, grandad. People just make poor choices sometimes

>constantly warn player that if she does the thing, everything's gonna get messy
>she still does the thing
>this keeps happening all the time
>she finds it hillarious

Run 'em through the Tomb of Horrors. Nip that shit in the bud before it becomes a problem. The entire tabletop community will thank you for it.

>running tomb of horrors for first timers
if i did that i'd be stuck with 6 rogues that spend the entire game taking 20 on every tile for traps

>every failed action is cause of DM fiat.
>"....when I run a game...."
>kill everyone you failed to intimidate

so stop incentivizing her you fucking retard. give her consequences that she wont find hilarious

how is this even a fucking issue

>getting invested into their own characters
Actually it means they aren't invested, because they don't care if that character dies, or (because of video games) they think that character can't *really* die for good.
Even badasses run to prevent their death. Conan the fucking barbarian has fled from packs of lions, ghosts, and scores of men when he knew he didn't have a chance making it out alive. If someone is invested in their character they will behave in a way to preserve that character's life, such as running when they see that they're outmatched.

Yes, but people don't remember Conan for running, they remember him for outsmarting and killing cult leaders and evil monsters. You're imagining that each player is meticulously planning out the life for their character, when it's really that they want to do cool shit, and assume you put that dragon there to be killed, because what story has an evil dragon in it that doesn't get killed?

I'm not saying their right, obviously some stories do have evil dragons that don't get killed, but people only remember the highlight reel in the moment. They rarely stop to remember that Conan had to flee and lick his wounds sometimes. They only think about how badass it looked when he chopped some wizard's head off

Conan running away is often what led to him doing awesome shit, and in many stories his escape and chase is the main focus of the action. A player character's will to live and survive can lead into good stories. A player who isn't interested in viewing a challenge in an internally-consistent way deserves to have their character die for fatal mistakes. That's the quickest way to teach that lesson.
They assume that the dragon is there to be killed because that's how video games work.
In literature, as I've pointed out, the hero sometimes runs out of necessity. Conan runs, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser run, Elric runs, etc. When going from books to tabletop, no one makes the assumption that they should try to kill everything, because not even the heroes in fantasy stories try to do that. The previous user's point is that video games teach these lessons, and I'm supporting that with evidence that these players aren't getting that attitude from books.

There's nothing fun about having to run away though, maybe if it's like zombies/demons/creepy ass monsters, but if it's just generico bandit group #33 then the players won't want to
I'm running a game where this happened
>mundanish enemies who harbor secret attack that does assloads of ongoing damage
>PC decides to not call in the rest of the group and attempts to solo them
>gets DOT'd several times, instead of fully running away he hides, then attempts to attack immedietally after the DOTs wear off
>rolls poorly, isn't able to kill mundanish looking enemies, then gets DOT'd to death
The same player ran when there was something that was established to be threatening as all get out before hand and was clearly dangerous

Why would the DM make bandits the encounter strong enough to make a party flee? That's fucking stupid and a bad example.
No. You flee from huge flying things like Rocs. You flee from ghosts when you don't have magic weapons. You flee from hordes of zombies or demons, like you yourself suggested.
Characters should be played like they're adventurers who care about self-preservation. Running away is always an option that should be open, even if it's not "fun."
And if you're the DM, it's your job to make running away fun. Because it sure as fuck can be. It could be stooges-esque slapstick hijinks, a frantic, anxious escape from a murderous mob, or a stealthy attempt to evade recapture by a large, monstrous predator. All of these things can be fun.
But again, because video games make enemies tailor-made to the player, then running away doesn't seem like an appetizing choice ever. But the point is that it is in fact video games that breeds that mentality. People who get into the hobby from books have read about their heroes fleeing danger and know that it's' an option for them.

Because unless such person is a fucking machine he has common sense unless he roleplays pc as being stupidly brave. Its about picking the fighta you can win without getting your arm chopped off.

>a guy insults your mother
>squab time

>same situation
>guy has a fucking machete
>nope.jpg

>Implying the PCs get to pick every fight
I'm not really even sure what you meant. This whole back and forth has been about the players who, due to growing up on video games, believe all the enemies will be killable for them as soon as they come across them.
I'm saying that you have to teach that player that running away is an option, and running away can lead to good, interesting things as well.

Raimi wrote that one as part of the movie deal.

> "My character likes gold and shiny things"
> "So she tries to steal all the loot mid-combat before anyone else notices it"
> "She tries to steal health potions too and demands payment for them"
> "She tries to steal magic scrolls she can't even fucking read, and demands payment for them"
> "All downtime she has is spent by going into random houses and stealing whatever they have"

I remember that my cleric met a rogue like that once.

So the rogue hoarded money and took money from enemies without sharing with the rest of the group and after a group huddle, the wizard came up with a good plan in order to make the fucker understand that we weren't playing around.

So anytime the rogue got hit and asked for healing from the cleric, I would ask for some gold.

Anytime the rogue needed something or other identified or a potion, the wizard requested payment.

And anytime the barbarian caught the rogue swearing, he would shake him and take some money from him to the "Speak cleanly" jar that he cared so much for. He usually ended up divvying the loot from it with us and the wizard made sure he got the biggest part: he was a nice big oaf, that barbarian.

Eventually the rogue got the message and stopped being a cunt.

How dare you suggest a quantum plot hook here on Veeky Forums

You'll be drawn and quartered for this heresy! :^)

Fucking players wanting to just murderhobo and then complaining when nothing progresses
>Put weeks into designing intricate overarching plot
>Start the players off blind, but leave subtle hints and clues
>Party doesnt pick up
>Over time clues get more and more obvious
>Players still cant be bothered
>Finally they reach an abandoned fort
>Obvious signs of recent entry, mystical tombs being disturbed, well of magic being tapped, yadayadayada
>Players ignore all of this and just murderhobo
>And of session: "Your game is getting stale user, there's no plot or progression"
>"Wut"
>Finally crack and railroad them next session
Seriously, I fucking give up on doing anything other than outright telling them what to do.

And then there was this:
>Running a game where the Elves have won
>As in won. All other races have been subjugated and elves are the Catholic church crossed with the Imperial Inquisition crossed with Nazi Germany crossed with Stalin's Russia
>Elves can have you killed for looking at them if they feel like it
>The Church is absolute, heresy is punished y death
>Players rescue an Elf Cleric who has been captured by Gnolls
>Of the three only one grovels to her
>One treats her as an equal/idiot, but the other talks down to her and threatens her at every turn
>Turns out that only the groveller had read the campaign backstory and world history
>>MFW the other two realised how screwed they where
Seriously, the badmouther grovelled and begged to be allowed to repent.

Other gripes:
Player blows half the party up with an IED oil bomb
>You should never have put us in that position user, thats bad DM'ing
>THEY where the ones who charged a mile to the undead heavy infantry who where formed up to meet them
Player suicides
>"You shouldnt put things that can randomly kill players into the campaign, thats bad DM'ing"
>YOU CLIMBED INTO THE WELL OF RAW MAGIC YOURSELF YOU FUCKWAD!

Never worry, the OP from the original thread is here with the big version.

>tfw you listed all of your gripes in the previous thread.

Raimi era. It was a different time.

>the quest the PCs have been working since the game started was secretly helping the bad guys
Is there a worse plot point?

The movie deal said Spider Man had to hit Jews?

If it is a fascist empire he is right to hate them. That being said he could and should have used the prince as the means to an end. Save the prince, use him for favours, use those favours to gain power, use that power to overthrow and behead him.

In the group I'll bet taking over GMing for, there's one fuckwit who brings a Switch and completely distracts himself with it during the game.
I'm already switching to team initiative to try to make it less "is it my turn yet", but if he's still blowing everyone off for vidya then he just won't be getting turns.

Ooh, here is another one from the last session I ran:
>Party is in a town that is being attacked by a horde/army of Gnolls
>A few hundred of them
>Party and guards/militia have the advantage of a nice fortified position atop the palisade
>Dwarf fighter breaks his bow
>Decides to throw himself into the mob swarming the walls
>The complains when he gets mobbed
I am not even sure why someone would throw themselves into an army in the first place, but then complaining when you start taking damage?!

My big thing is scheduling. Initiate rant mode.

I'm running a game of cyberpunk2020 with a few buds and my gf. I try like fuck to coordinate with everyone to play around one guys cycling work schedule. This dude works second shift while the rest of us are on first, is also in the national guard, and is getting married in a month so he's pretty busy right now and the rest of us get that.

But, then I get shit from everyone else, one guy and my gf in particular, bugging me about playing. So then I'll fuck around and come up with "side missions" for them to do and they comment on how they just wanna play the main story and that the side shit is not as fun.

So then I offer up cutting the dude with the shit schedule and nobody is down for that since he pretty much got all of us into role playing years ago so they say "it'd be weird" if he weren't involved.

It's frustrating as fuck because I can't win. Either we wait around for dude and the sessions are good but it's like once every 2-3 weeks and I get shit for that, or we play without him and it's not as good because it's side quest shit and they all want the main story but "we can't play without user!"

>not pulling a 'I knew all along and I'm secretly in on it' play to save face

The only main gripe I have with my DM is that I am punished for asking questions. I was about to replace my longsword for a plus 2 longsowrd. I asked the shopkeep if I was able to sell my old sword since I was buying that one and he destroyed it. I of course wanted a discount of 25 coins (I think that's the amount a longsword is worth) so he destroyed his own +2 longsword and closed up shop, leaving the rest of my party with new weapons and me with nothing.

One of my players pees in empty two litre bottles under the table.

kick him out holy shit

>Player is convinced that irrelevant detail is actually crucial to the plot
>Still insists he is right even after receiving several hints to the contrary

What. Why would he do that? He was about to make a sale.

??? are you playing with an actual human being or some weird egomutant

west marches

pet peeve
>I'll shoot my crossbow, drink the strength potion, then rush in with my longsword, slice twice, and carry out my wounded friend while casting a fireball and smokescreen to cover our escape
>3 other players stare perplexed after they've done one action per round and wondering if they're playing this game wrong

hold it right the fuck there Rambo, there ain't enough haste spells in the spellbook or the DMG to give you that many actions

The only way I can think of rationalizing that is for the weapons to have been secretly cursed in some way, and the shopkeep started spilling spaghetti when you asked questions.

Nah it wasnt cursed or nothin, one of the other guys bought the same sword. The only reason he destroyed his own sword was because I asked for a discount for destroying my sword for no reason. This was the first session but I didnt go back

good call

Assuming you are playing D&D, how can you break your bow? Granted I have only ever played 5e, so it may be an earlier edition thing.

Shouldn't be that hard to fudge up a dual worlds sorta deal. Not at all familiar with Cyberpunk2020, but top of my head just from the sounds of it, simulations/VR are gonna be a thing. Someone knocks the three of them out and wires something into their heads that can hijack their consciousness and drag them into a simulation remotely. Or the three of them, for some information-gathering reason or another, create digital clones of themselves and upload them into a server or database that has some plot relevant info.

Dunno if this is bad, but whatever
>DMing PotA
>PCs make it to Rivergard Keep not knowing they are actually cultists pretending to be mecenaries
>Start asking one of the captains questions about the area before they head to Feathergale Spire
>Answers cooley, but to the best of his ability
>PCs ask one more question before they set off
>"I don't know. I'm not an encyclopedia of knowledge."
>"WOOOOOW! FUCK THIS GUY! FUCK YOU, WHY DID WE BOTHER TO TALK TO YOU?!"
>Proceed to get shit-stomped at Feathergale Spire shortly after

It was weird irony, but they still won with no casualties. I just find it odd when PCs find an NPC who doesn't know everything and soon drop them as if they insulted their entire family. Granted, they played it off as a joke, but I can't help but think that they were annoyed that they couldn't bypass half the investigation or something.

I don't want to berate you, but I see no fault with the player here. When you describe a tough guy, you, since you are the master, know that the threat is too severe.

For the player, the threat is a challenge. Simply describing that player character X has a bad feeling facing this encounter will not help.

>how can you break your bow?
some people get wacky with their critical failures

>They assume that the dragon is there to be killed because that's how video games work.
That's how all of fucking fiction works, you gigantic twat.

I always wonder, what people did blame their PCs acting the way 95% of fictional heroes act on before video games became main stream enough to be used as the universal scapegoat for this kind of thing?

>"Yeah if you want to bring a kobold along with you you're going to have some problems, guards are going to need to be convinced to let him in the city. You can do it, but it'll need some stealth or good talking"
>>"That's dumb monster adventurer's are a thing you know"

>"If you hire some mercenaries you'll certainly have an edge in the upcoming fight, but depending on how they do in the fight they will be cutting some of your exp gained down, since they count as party members"
>>"What that's dumb why would they do that?"
>"Because of this rule in the DMG, stating that exact thing"
>>"Yeah but when I run it I don't do that"
>"That's nice but that's not the rules for mercenaries and other hirelings that participate in combat"

>"Due to [world thing] the creation of magical weapons and armor is an ancient lost art, and if anyone in the world is capable of it, they're one of if not the rarest groups of people on the planet, so I'm going to say artificer is not available as a class choice"
>>"But that's dumb why are you limiting PC choices?
>"You didn't even want to play an artificer until now, you've been talking about trying monk, bard, wizard, fighter. Now you're just changing to wanting to be an artificer because I said they're unavailable"
>>"Yeah but I want to be one"

This is fucking infuriating at times

Superhero cartoons, I'll bet. TV series and movies too, maybe.

If they weren't invested into their characters, then they wouldn't be raising a fuss when their characters do die. I don't think you thought this thing through.

She finds all consequences hillarious

Nigga, this leads to some of the best interactions and funnest moments. If you gripe about this, you are a really bad, railroading DM and need to stop.

I had a player kinda like that in my game. If an NPC giving them a quest couldn't answer every question they could possibly think of, they were keeping secrets and trying to get them killed and they would get super pissed with said NPC for the rest of time. Because apparently an NPC knows everything about everything.

We have a rule at my lgs. You aren't allowed to play a character if they should have been picked off by natural selection before the campaign even started.

Make a 'no gaming devices' rule.

Like, in the current day and age it's pretty much impossible to prevent folks from checking their phones and messages every now and then but bringing a fucking console/handheld or laptop is just rude and easily solved.

That's assuming the PC (the actual character) would think that far ahead in a hectic situation

Sometimes you just get people who don't give a shit about their party. I've had to deal with asshole wizards who don't contribute to group efforts and at one point convinced a caravan leader that the rest of the party were actually bandits and to just leave us out in the middle of the desert. And then sometimes they're just retards, like the one time there was a warlock who decided he had to kill the entire party because we were starting to encounter eldritch creatures and he was worried we would kill his GOO and take his powers away

Oh, no, she doesn't play stupid characters, she's just a naturally born wizard: no sense of right and wrong.

He rolled a natural 1. I generally hold critical fails as part of the game play to encourage tanking 10 and 20 when not in combat, but in combat I use them as a way to represent the little oddities that occasionally happen, such as a fighter slipping on the guts of his slain foe, or a wizard making a mistake in his chant and accidentally showering the foe in rose petals instead of fire.
In this case the player did specifically state that he had been in a lot of hard close quarter fighting before joining the party, and it was not hard to extrapolate that to his bow having been damaged during the action.

>magic item creature is a lost art
>wizards are still around
But why? There's super powerful magic users around but they're too autistic to figure out how to put some magic into a stick?

>>magic item creation is a lost art*

Does that mean that the fighter becomes more clumsy/unlucky as he levels up and gains more attacks (and chances to roll a natural 1)?

make him right

No, that would represent more that the fighter is pushing themselves and their equipment to their limit as they become more proficient at what they do. At least that's how I interpret it.

That DM detected.

>players seem to think it's a fun game to fond reasons not to be together

>players want to be weird races, get mad when their tree kin is not welcomed with open arms into a town plagued by angry fey

>players get mad when dumb actions have dumb consequences and call it "DM ass pulling punishment" when they are caught by guard dogs who can smell you even if invisible

Mind you I am willing to listen to any good argument and go halfway, but holy shit sometimes you fucks just need to realize npc's have emotion and logical skills (most of the time)

Is she playing a wizard? If so and the party don't mind it seems s good fit.

>having unconfirmed crit fails
>having crit fails at all
awful

The problem is that they will NEVER run away, even when they fall way behind and comrades start dying. It simply doesn't occur to them.

>Not forcing human-only campaigns in every RPG you run
It's almost like you want your players to play stereotypes and not characters

>b-but our characters took so long to make!
Try not encouraging them to care about backstory. Then prepare for the murderhobo behaviors to spring up.

Play a "side game". Different campaign, minus busy guy.

This, or try a different system. My group has a guy like this so when he can't make it we play one-off campaings in Call of Cthulu instead

But the bonuses.

They get crit successes so why not crit fails? It also helps stop them from becoming too cocky as they have to allow leeway for bad luck.
In combat it also represents fumbles, trips, etc. In other words random chances that are bad for the player. The NPC's and monsters get them too, so the players are not the only ones to suffer.
He does not have to take all those attacks, but if he does then the increased chance represents him throwing care to the wind as he pushes himself further and further.

>Half the group want to dick around and be silly, don't care about stats of puzzles
>The other half want a serious game with all nitty gritty details
It wouldn't be so rage inducing if people were just honest with what they want.

If you or your players really want stat bonuses, just make subraces for humans and stat them like non-human races
If your players complain, then tell them the only reason they want to play that race is for the stats and nothing else :^)

Yeah, but why is the heroic badass legendary warrior with a legendary sword five times as likely to fuck up something basic as the total novice with a cheap pigsticker?

He absolutely does have to take those attacks if he wants to contribute meaningfully.

>>Players who don't understand that their actions have consequences, and that if they betray, attack, or insult someone, that person will likely dislike them intensely otherwise.

What's even worse is when they then start crying "muh player agency!"

For one thing, experienced warriors aren't going to be fucking up 5% of the time they attack. For another, it further punishes players for choosing the weaker classes (wizards don't make a lot of attack rolls).

It's almost like you're an autist looking for (You)s. Nobody will miss you when you die.

But a static 5% chance to slip on guts or break a bow is obviously skewed and just retarded.

Fine, well I may be in a minority but if the monsters suffer from them then so shall the PC's.

The monsters shouldn't suffer from them either, genius.
Why the fuck would a war demon older than the sun have a 5% chance of fucking up each attack?

Crit fails don't happen to anybody you fucking idiot

>He does not have to take all those attacks
Hey you know that class feature that makes you contribute meaningfully? You don't have to use those you know

That's like saying wizards don't have to cast spells. Sure it's true, but how would you feel if your wizard just stands back and throws rocks at the dragon instead of casting spells?

After the rolled 1, roll again. If 1-5 then stage 2 crit. Continue with consecutive 1's.

A regular 1 crit means a broken or dropped weapon.
A stage 2 crit (a 1 with an after roll within 1-5) means some minor tragedy occurs that results in self or ally damage. Like tripping into window, max damage hit on friendly, grenage explodes in hand, etc
A stage 3 crit (two 1's then 1-5) is big time bad luck. Bag of grenades goes off, set on fire, lose a limb or eye, triple damage to self etc
Stage 4 crit is death.

Similar ramping for crit hit.

Because combat is intense and shit happens. There are tons of ways to explain it.

Fully agreed. If there are crits there should be fumbles, and they should apply to everything.

>A regular 1 crit means a broken or dropped weapon.
what? people don't have a 5% chance to drop or break the weapon
maybe the weakest of noobs might drop their weapon with a 5% chance, but not a highly trained soldier
You are saying that a complete noob and a soldier with years of training have the same chance of suddenly dropping their weapons.

the rest of these are similarly bad.
they have a 1 in 20 chance of breaking their weapons, what happens if all their weapons break in a fight?
Also this penalizes martials even more
What the fuck

Crit should be something slightly bad, like missing a target, or getting a slight cramp, or being blinded for a short time (1 round) or something similarly serious
maybe a stage 2 or 3 crit with broken weapons, but not stage 1

You are the physical manifestation of all those "well I rolled a 20 so I can do everything" greentexts

I've had many players go full-on because they lost interest in them and wanted to roll a new character. Granted, that was in a super hero rpg wherein a 1st lvl character is not much less powerful than a high lvl one.

On the other hand, having also been a player, there are times when I should have run but didn't only because I didn't understand how lethal my circumstances were. Was playing a cool Gamma World character that I was trying play like a Bard. We met up with a flying monster we knew nothing about and had only been in two previous combats which we handled easily. It attacked first and missed us all. We attacked. It attacked ... and killed us all. We had no idea how dangerous our opponent was.

>elves
>winning

This is objectively shit.

Your dubs compel me to reread my own post. "Broken weapon" is actually a stage 2. Stage 1 crit is only ever something that makes you lose an attack or similar inconvenience (other than "missing" since that is obvious) Also obvious is no broken weapon in a fistfight. More like hit something harder than your fist on accident and take half damage rolled.

>You are the physical manifestation of all those "well I rolled a 20 so I can do everything" greentexts

Um, no. A 20 gets you a minor damage bonus. But then roll again. 15-20 is stage 2 crit and means double dmage. Stage 3 something in the order of hit two enemies (if possible) or chain reaction of attack nullifying calamity (like a wall of rum barrels fall on enemy group losing their next attack and taking damage. stage 4 would be insta kill or lose half HP depending on enemy (no insta on a god or 10+ hd monster etc)

So, No. Not "I can do anything". Its a sliding scale of reasonable consequences. Not 5% ... 1/4 of 5% ... you tripper.

>Also obvious is no broken weapon in a fistfight. More like hit something harder than your fist on accident and take half damage rolled.
Okay, user. maybe we have a slight misunderstanding:
How often do your players go into fistfights? How often do your players fight things that fists are not effective against? How widespread are weapons?

>So, No. Not "I can do anything". Its a sliding scale of reasonable consequences. Not 5% ... 1/4 of 5% ... you tripper.
first: your were the one that said that they drop their weapons on a Nat 1, which is a 5% chance of happening
second: the greentexts are about having 20s be super awesome and 1s devastating, which they only are in fighting and then only modify chances of hitting. So yeah, a game in which a fighter loses his weapon (the thing that makes him a powerful individual) every 20 attacks is like these. Fitting in a comedy game but not in anything else

Ive employed a similar system in every rpg I've run (most often V&V which has lots of hth, D&D, and Gamma World) It certainly never felt like "one out of every twenty" even though statistics would seem to command it. It was always rare enough to feel fair. Always loved by players when the enemy is blistered by it so it is flat-field-sunny-day technology.

The idea of 1-20 fumbles does sound goofy but it never feels that way in play. Actually has felt just right for keeping that fear alive. In my V&V campaigns a high enough Int score helped buffer crit fail roles and characters above lvl 10 got a stage shift.

>players want to be weird races
what's wrong with that?