So yesterday I finally got to run the beginner box game with my group. One guy had such a great time he actually never fired a weapon but contributed to each encounter in a very role playing way (more on that later). So one of my players has a hard time understanding about crits and when they happen. He has the same problem in D&D and Pathfinder. So he rolls and gets 2 success, 2 failures, & 3 advantage. So I say, "you miss your shot, what would you like to do with your advantages"? He says I'll crit the wall. I tell him you can't crit unless you suceed in your attack, just like when you rolled a 19 (possible crit) but when you added up your bonuses you missed the monster. He then says I don't understand, it says right on my sheet, 3 advantage to make a crit. Say I shoot at Bob (names changed incase they read this) I missed but have 3 advantage, the shot does stop it hits something, like the gas tank on that vehicle which crits and blows it up. I try again to explain, yes you could of crit if your attack suceeded however, it failed so you just have advantage to use and you can use 2 to give a boost die to someone, recover strain, or something similar. He then just says, "I just don't understand, this makes no sense. I'll give Tim a boost die." then he gets up and walks away (to cool off, get a drink, use bathroom or whatever).

I just don't know any other way to explain it. You can't crit if you don't succeed on your attack. Does anyone else have a way of explaining this? Or am I just wrong? If you miss but want your miss to hit the wall, ceiling, holo-display near the mobs can you use a crit? If I am wrong that is fine, I'll explain that I was and we will fix it for the future. Please help.

Thanks,

J

Sounds like you explained it correctly. I think I understand how he misunderstood it tho. I guess he could've given 1 boost to 'Tim' and then the two of you could reason that 'Tim' gets the boost because the other guy's shot went wide/wild and struck something that sparked/minor explode in the enemy's face.

You're right, but you should be careful. I've played in a game where the GM had no clue what to do with advantages, and it quickly turned into "pass a boost die," "pass a boost die," "pass a boost die." That's frustrating for players. If you roll 5 advantages but miss your attack, you're going to feel like a real schmuck if those advantages do basically nothing.

So while your player couldn't "crit," he made (assuming this was his) a decent suggestion to hit a fuel tank and make it blow up. If there was one nearby, and that was something the player suggested, I'd absolutely let him have it for a decent number of advantages. Flavor it so that it knocks the bad guy prone and does maybe a flat one wound. Give the player something. Advantages get really boring really fast if all you have in your pocket is "recover strain" and "pass a boost die."

That guy might glike D&D Next, where a roll of 20 is a crit with no need to confirm.

I agree the player made what I consider a fun, interesting suggestion to blow up a tank on the wall.

In fact, I did the same thing as a GM in our first Beginner Box session. The PCs were fleeing from Stormtroopers, with a couple of the PCs shooting back.

One of the Stormtroopers shot at a PC and missed, but got something like 3 Advantage.

I decided that meant the Stormtrooper's shot missed the character, but hit a wall and caused a power coupling to fall from the wall, blocking the character's escape route. It then took an extra turn for our Wookiee to haul the character over the obstacle to escape.

I wasn't thinking of it as a "Critical Hit" on anything specific, I just thought it would make a fun thing to happen in the battle. In fact after climbing over it, the PCs used the obstacle for cover. The Stormtrooper missed again but with several advantages and I ruled that meant the stray shot had hit an active part of the obstacle, which caused some sparking, meaning 1 Setback Die to the PCs' next attack.

In short, the way I see it (or how you might explain it) is that if you don't actually hit you can't literally spend Advantage to get a Critical Hit, however you CAN spend 3 Advantage to make some beneficial thing happen in the environment. Not as far as doing literal damage to enemy characters, but to act as setback or boost dice to future actions.

AgentJ, I think that both you and the player missed a step here. Nothing major, but it seems like a minor lack of communication.

Although whatever reference the PC was looking at may not have noted it, the rules on "Spending Advantage and Triumph in Combat" clearly states "Inflict a Critical Injury with a successful attack that deals damage past soak."

Taking the PC's flawed understanding to a logical (but ridiculous) extreme, missing a target but trying to crit "the wall" would be almost like trying to invoke a crit on a character you didn't hit: "Okay, I hit the stormtrooper. I'll use the crit on Darth Vader."

Having said that, the PC definitely "gets" how the game works in wanting to "crit" the gas tank (or even the wall). If I were GMing, my next question would probably have been "Okay, what are you trying to accomplish?" and then I would make the determination if I felt that 3 Advantages were enough to accomplish it (and then assign a mechanical effects accordingly.

I don't think explicitly stated in the rules anywhere, but a typical basic conceit in almost any RPG is that a "miss" against the intended target is "harmless" and does not negatively/significantly impact the environment. I would not have let the PC "crit" the wall, but I would have asked what effect he was looking for.

Just want to clarify that the blowing up the tank was an example of real life at the table, We were playing in the garage (no smoking in the house) and that is when he said, "If I shoot at Bob and miss but have 3 advantage I could hit the gas tank on the jeep behind him and crit causing it to blow up". The part in the adventure we were in the cantina. So pretty sure no gas tank at the cantina. Basically he wanted to crit the wall or the ceiling to make it collapse when he missed his shot.

Thanks all for the comments, I really appreciate them. And sorry about the confusion but the blue text was an example the player used out of game, not in game.

AgentJ, I think that both you and the player missed a step here. Nothing major, but it seems like a minor lack of communication.

Although whatever reference the PC was looking at may not have noted it, the rules on "Spending Advantage and Triumph in Combat" clearly states "Inflict a Critical Injury with a successful attack that deals damage past soak."

Taking the PC's flawed understanding to a logical (but ridiculous) extreme, missing a target but trying to crit "the wall" would be almost like trying to invoke a crit on a character you didn't hit: "Okay, I hit the stormtrooper. I'll use the crit on Darth Vader."

Having said that, the PC definitely "gets" how the game works in wanting to "crit" the gas tank (or even the wall). If I were GMing, my next question would probably have been "Okay, what are you trying to accomplish?" and then I would make the determination if I felt that 3 Advantages were enough to accomplish it (and then assign a mechanical effects accordingly.

I don't think explicitly stated in the rules anywhere, but a typical basic conceit in almost any RPG is that a "miss" against the intended target is "harmless" and does not negatively/significantly impact the environment. I would not have let the PC "crit" the wall, but I would have asked what effect he was looking for.

Page reference for that rule please? BTW I love your example and the way you explain it. I understand it is my fault, basically failing as a GM or not doing a good job of it. I will learn and improve seeing as this was my first time which is why I am here looking for help/advice. Although I did notice a Game Masters section after making the post and wondered how I could move it to that forum. Did not figure it out, if it is even possible. Live and learn ....

Thanks,

J

Always kill your players in a more spectacular way than the last time.

So yesterday I finally got to run the beginner box game with my group. One guy had such a great time he actually never fired a weapon but contributed to each encounter in a very role playing way (more on that later). So one of my players has a hard time understanding about crits and when they happen. He has the same problem in D&D and Pathfinder. So he rolls and gets 2 success, 2 failures, & 3 advantage. So I say, "you miss your shot, what would you like to do with your advantages"? He says I'll crit the wall. I tell him you can't crit unless you suceed in your attack, just like when you rolled a 19 (possible crit) but when you added up your bonuses you missed the monster. He then says I don't understand, it says right on my sheet, 3 advantage to make a crit. Say I shoot at Bob (names changed incase they read this) I missed but have 3 advantage, the shot does stop it hits something, like the gas tank on that vehicle which crits and blows it up. I try again to explain, yes you could of crit if your attack suceeded however, it failed so you just have advantage to use and you can use 2 to give a boost die to someone, recover strain, or something similar. He then just says, "I just don't understand, this makes no sense. I'll give Tim a boost die." then he gets up and walks away (to cool off, get a drink, use bathroom or whatever).

I just don't know any other way to explain it. You can't crit if you don't succeed on your attack. Does anyone else have a way of explaining this? Or am I just wrong? If you miss but want your miss to hit the wall, ceiling, holo-display near the mobs can you use a crit? If I am wrong that is fine, I'll explain that I was and we will fix it for the future. Please help.

Thanks,

J

I've GMed nearly 70 sessions of warhammer 3 and 10 sessions of Star Wars and I may tell it's a cooperative storytelling rpg mechanic :

1) you probably should try to never say NO, but always use instead YES, BUT...

Example : "YES you readied an amazing shot BUT your target used to be so swift that you focus at last time on something on the wall ready to cause damage... WHAT IS IT AGAIN ?" As you invite your player to create something himself from the result, everybody feels connected and willing to tell a great story.

2) GM should not always be the one to suggest dice result....let's try that : the guy rolling the dice is the guy interpretating the result.

The GM is a sort of referee when the players roll only to limit the munchkinism. if the rolling player has, this time, no idea on how to picture the dice result, then and only then, the GM should suggest his own idea. That cooperative creation is great for PCs to get involved and not only tell what they try, roll dice, and then watch the game resumed.

good gaming

@Willmanx

I think that's right on the money. Though I would say, let the players spend their advantages on the narrative, but you define the mechanical results of that narrative.

So for example in the case of "I shoot the tank and it explodes".. On a critical it might outright kill something, or do a bunch of damage, but on a miss, it might just knock them prone, or stun them for a round. The idea is that the narrative "I blow up the tank" doesn't define the results mechanically only the narrative results. Its ALWAYS the job of the GM to give the mechanical results, unless their is a defined rules for what should happen mechanically.

This can be tricky, because a player might say "I blow up the tank, it explodes and kills the stormtrooper", which is still a narrative response and is legitimate. As a DM you have to become kind of clever. For example you might rule that it happens exactly as the players describe, but as they come out of cover to look over the scene the stormtrooper, bloodied and charred stands up and starts shooting again... aka the players only thought he was dead. After all as a GM when you give the narrative you give the players the narrative they see and hear, not necessarily the actual mechanical results, at least you shouldn't. It will make them wary about the narratives they hear, including the ones they give based on their own results and frankly that's how you want it.

That said, it is always in your right to say, sorry I don't think 1 advantage is sufficient to blow up the tank, but you hit it and it starts leaking making the floor slippery. Another words, counter a narrative with an alternative based on the original by identifying that the player simply didn't have the roll to accomplish what they hoped for. In this case the accomplishment they where going for is "blow up", but the first thing that perhaps 1 advantage on a miss might allow is "hit the tank"... perhaps with 2 you could blow it up and with 3 you "kill the stormtrooper" and deal with the fact that it was technically a miss by waking up the dead stormtrooper.

I think in a narrative system like this, the GM just needs to be very clever in providing as many "yes's" as possible so that the players feel the controls as the game intends them to, but always consider the core function of the spirit of those mechanics.. A miss, is still a miss, so there should be a miss in that narrative somehow and there is nothing better than a miss that you think is a hit... its really classic Star Wars, its just that in the movies it happens to the stormtroopers usually .. aka they think they killed the characters but actually their 3 advantages where part of a miss roll and they are still alive.

I was going to type a lengthy response to this, but then BigKahuna came along and basically said everything I planned to say.

sounds like a misuse in terminology, so be careful. True he can't "crit" anything, but with 3 advantages, that's certainly enough to cause something else...like hit a computer, making it spark, or a feul tank. Those are very good ideas, they're just not called a "crit", so be careful with how you use terms and how THEY might use terms.

That wayward hit could cause maybe the enemy to fall prone, or could even distract him, which gives the next player a boost.

What I like to do is, rather than saying "pass a boost die to the next player", to ask the player to describe WHY the next player gets a boost die. It could be because even though the player missed the shot, he hit the fuel tank, distracted the enemy, and now the next player can line up his shot better.

If he stacks that with AIM, he now has two boost to use.

I think you made a big mistake here. Why didn't you just let him hit the tank with his 3 advantage? Who cares whether or not it was a valid "crit"? He came up with a good narrative way to spend his advantage and you completely let him down.

No wonder he gave up, I would have too with such a poor GM. If you want your players to just keep adding boost dies for each advantage then keep up with this kind of bad GM-ing style.

"I got zero success but 3 advantage."

*expectant look at the player*

"I...hit the wall."

"Your shot goes wild and hits the ceiling -- a lighting fixture crashes onto your opponent's head, momentarily distracting him."

"Nice shot!"

"Yeah...I meant to do that..."

I think you made a big mistake here. Why didn't you just let him hit the tank with his 3 advantage? Who cares whether or not it was a valid "crit"? He came up with a good narrative way to spend his advantage and you completely let him down.

No wonder he gave up, I would have too with such a poor GM. If you want your players to just keep adding boost dies for each advantage then keep up with this kind of bad GM-ing style.

While I agree that he should have allowed the advantages to blow up the tank as a narrative way to explain some mechanical ruling on setback dice, knocking him prone, etc the second part seems overly harsh. He came here looking for help not discouragement. This hobby needs more people willing to GM, not less.

I think you made a big mistake here. Why didn't you just let him hit the tank with his 3 advantage? Who cares whether or not it was a valid "crit"? He came up with a good narrative way to spend his advantage and you completely let him down.

No wonder he gave up, I would have too with such a poor GM. If you want your players to just keep adding boost dies for each advantage then keep up with this kind of bad GM-ing style.

That's a bit of a harsh response don't you think? I mean he recognizes a problem and is seeking advice on how to deal with it, that alone tells me he's a great GM.

Suffice to say, I think the general advice is to be more flexible. In a narrative system, terminology like "critical hit" doesn't really have an application in the narrative. It has application in the mechanics, but as soon as you get to a point where your trying to determine whether an explosion of a bacta tank is or isn't a critical hit you'll get yourself in trouble. You always want to roll with the narrative provided by your players and adapt the mechanical results from the rules, which hopefully have enough coverage for you to at least have an idea on something to draw on. More than that you want to make sure they reflect the results of the roll, so if 3 advantages with a miss according to the rules is not a critical then the mechanical application should not be as effective as the critical success would be regardless of how the narrative is swung.

A good GM is two things, first and foremost he recognizes he is the host and entertainer of the gaming session and second that he is a participant to, not the ruler of the story or the rules. I think most get the first part, the second is the most frequently screwed up.

I would personally argue that a good GM runs the rules as written, but that's more of a player preference. I don't like tons of house rules adjustments or made up rules that complicate the game which is something a lot, if not most GM's obsess about and do far too much in my opinion. A good game is one where the rule book, is the rule book and players can depend on it to know how things work.

Yours is a good example where this second aspect of GMing can be problematic. When players either don't understand the rules, the rules are themselves unclear or if rules and the narrative kind of merge and need translation is where things can get complicate. Which is why its always best to go back to the first and most important rule of GMing, making it fun. In your case.. let the bloody thing explode... its not a story changing event, nor are you required to make any sort of consistent mechanical ruling because its a narrative event. So there really is no reason to fight against it if you know what I mean.

I would however in this case set the player aside and nail the point home that a miss is a miss, regardless of any other added aspects of a roll because this is the rule which does not require interpretation. This is important because while its fine to go right ahead and let the tank explode on a role like this, if you agree that a critical hit is a critical hit, the result will be that you will have to apply to other aspects of the rules that are mechanical, like actual critical hits. In a sense, its kind of a catch 22 for you... in a war between rules and narrative you want the narrative to win, but at the same time not set a precedence that can later be used to fuel arguments about actual mechanical rules.

so, imo, the answer should have been, "well, technically it's not a 'crit', because you missed, but you can certainly hit the wall to cause something else to happen."

Yeah, look at the chart on page 205 (I think that's the page) for some possible mechanical effects for 3 advantages and then use narration to describe how the tank explosion caused the effect (eg the sudden explosion caused him to be knocked forward and he drops his blaster, or something that you and your player agree is roughly equivalent to those options for 3 advantages)

Page reference for that rule please? BTW I love your example and the way you explain it. I understand it is my fault, basically failing as a GM or not doing a good job of it. I will learn and improve seeing as this was my first time which is why I am here looking for help/advice. Although I did notice a Game Masters section after making the post and wondered how I could move it to that forum. Did not figure it out, if it is even possible. Live and learn ....

Thanks,

J

Always kill your players in a more spectacular way than the last time.

Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to the beginner's game (loaned to one of my players to get a feel for the game), so I can't quote page. In fact, it's possible that phrase I identified isn't in the streamlined basic version... but I think the intention is clear. IceBear may have referenced the same table I looked at in the core rulebook. The page number seems about right.

Don't beat up your performance as a GM. As folks have pointed out, the fact that you had a concern and came here to ask advice is a good call. There's a ton of rules in a game like this, and it's hard to keep track of all of them. If I can offer one general piece of advice: as long as the PCs go along with it, don't worry about the rules if they get in the way of the fun.

And, not to bash your player, but he's not blameless in this. He seems to be almost intentionally misunderstanding the generally accepted RPG definition of a "hit." Very hard to deal with someone on a topic where they don't grasp the basics.

Have fun!

I would recommend listening to the skill monkey suggestions , both for you and the players , its up to the players how to interpret the dice rolls they make. Whe I would not have allowed him to blow a gas tank, things like having him hit the ceiling that causes the target to jump out the way making him more vulnerable to the next shot, or alternatively have that eiling cut off the target, effectively cutting him out ifcombat for a few round as he digs himself out.

Just want to clarify that the blowing up the tank was an example of real life at the table, We were playing in the garage (no smoking in the house) and that is when he said, "If I shoot at Bob and miss but have 3 advantage I could hit the gas tank on the jeep behind him and crit causing it to blow up". The part in the adventure we were in the cantina. So pretty sure no gas tank at the cantina. Basically he wanted to crit the wall or the ceiling to make it collapse when he missed his shot.

So, he blows out the lights, making the difficult to return fire tougher. He blows up a casket or brandy next to the target meaning that the next shot sets him on fire for huge damage. He blows up chunks of the wall, making the target flinch and skip their next shot. He shreds the table the target is hiding behind, removing his cover. He hits a gas main along the baseboard meaning an explosion the next time a shot is in the area.

In an instance where he gets a crit but misses, I'll usually give it to them for the sake of feeling destined or heroic.

As your shot flies towards his face, he lurches out of the way with a loud, straining grunt. However as your blaster shot impacts the wall, a structural beam it was connected to dislodges and knocks the guard in his fat head, blurring his vision (black die next attack) and causing 3 damage through his armor.

I don't get his confusion, but I get his frustration in rolling a good number of advantages and still having it come up fairly worthless.

Remember. The book is just a guide to help you have fun.

Let him "crit the wall" (as if that makes any sense) and roll, the wall probably will just lose its action next round.

Let him "crit the wall" (as if that makes any sense) and roll, the wall probably will just lose its action next round.

or lose a limb...that's always fun for a wall.

After reading the rules twice I come to the concluetion that it depends on the walls soak value. lol

If that happend to me and I wanted to crit the wall and my gm didnt let me I could see my self getting upset (not that I think I would of ever of tryed to crit a wall on a miss before reading this). BTW A critical injury of 41-45 could knock a wall prone but rolling for a critical injury result be taking it too far. :-P

I think gwek has it right let the PC hit the wall and ask them what he wants to happen.