How do you handle them?

I was reading some of the optional rules a few days ago and one of the suggested changes was to only allow Crit Success for non-combat actions. This made me think that actually we aren't doing anything with them as it is, just yaying at the extra damage from all the net hits. I've looked through the book but there's very little guidance on what to do for a Crit Success anyway. 'Add details and flourishes' doesn't really cut it for me. Can a character say 'Ok, Crit success. For my added flourish, I hit him in the eye.'? Would you allow bonus damage, as a called shot? What about minor wounds like the glitched DR tests in Augmentation? This could lead to someone suffering 2 wounds from 1 shot though if the crit causes over 7 damage.

Related, but different, what effects do you have for glitching a reaction test when being shot at? Is that as bad as glitching the DR test; catching the bullet in the face as you stare blankly at your attacker?

Would like to hear opinions

Just implant the SR3 rules regarding stress and injuries onto the fourth edition. (Maybe simplified)

And give extra stress, maybe at systems/bodyparts of the attackers choosing.

4th needs a bit more mutilation anyway.

Already available in SR4's Augmentation.
Besides, extra hits in combat are already their own reward. *shrug*

Which rules?

You know that gunslinger from Aliens resurrection?
That's a critical success

I' ve found that scene (actually the whole film) stupid.

Stupid can still be enjoyable
Only thing about that movie that don't sit right with me is the goddamn baby...

I find glitches (not crit glitches) to be the hardest to adjudicate. For crit successes I wouldn't be inclined to give a mechanical bonus (the extra success are their own reward, without blinding anybody on top of it), but I like letting the player define something on top of the action. Like if they're in a sword fight with an immaculately dressed assassin, maybe their crit success (in addition to any damage it may or may not do) slices his silk tie in half, or if they're trying to throw someone maybe they don't just throw them but put them into the shrimp platter on the buffet. ("Is this the man who wrecked the buffet at the Harrow Club this morning?") It's not really any more mechanically advantageous than not critting, but it may be a little more memorable. And if the player can't think of anything or doesn't care, then just keep going. The book also mentions giving back a point of Edge at Gm discretion-- as a GM I'd be more likely to give back a point of Edge for a really entertaining flourish.

Glitches on the other hand are kind a pain in the butt for me. Not the least of which because as the GM you have 10 or so other things on your mind when they come up and you have to ad lib something that is interesting and complicates the action without being unduly punishing to the character (who succeeds on the test, after all).

Administering Glitches well seems to require a bit of finesse. Make it too mild and it's just kind of unimportant. Make it too harsh and it can get someone killed.

The key thing to remember with a glitch is that it is still a successful action. The player should have something bad happen to them, but even with that they still need to come out ahead of their opponent.

~Umi

We do see the glitch problem also. What I find frustrating is that sometimes it's easier to just ignore them. A glitch at our table normally triggers a few laughs while different players suggest what funny things could happen with it, then we carry on usually without any penalty at all.

So, so far it seems no-one uses Crit Successes in a combat to cause extra damage or injury. I may experiment with it. I'm thinking of crit successes allowing you to retro-actively apply a called shot with a penalty up to the number of net hits*. Eg, it's a crit success so you always have the option of +4 damage (for the -4 dice) but extra successes over that could allow the ignore armour or shooting tiny objects and such.

The problem with this would I suppose be the difference between 3 and 4 net hits being +3 or +8 to DV. I'll give it a try and see how nasty it is.

*note: I don't intend to take the dice away as that would provide no bonus, it's just a way of determining what's available.

I played with a GM once who experimented with extra damage on critical succeses by applying a 50% bonus to the number of net hits, rounded down. It quickly became unreasonable, and he discontinued the test.

~Umi

Out of curiosity, in what way unreasonable? Were gun fights just too damaging? We're looking for something more deadly than the standard system so maybe it'll work out. Was it shoot first=win?

I've seen several crit charts and fumble charts and methods of dealing with this.

varying from GM discretion (gets to be hard work on the fly)

to comparisons on D100 on a chart..

My favourite though has to be a "Location Dice" and either double damage or halved BOD on that location.

1= head
2,3 = arms
4,5 = Legs
6 = Torso

it can be unfairly deadly on un helmeted players, but if you are looking for deadly, this is it.

That chart strikes me as a little wonky. In addition to the torso being the biggest part of the body, shooters are trained to aim for center-mass. Maybe something like this would be more reasonable:
1 = head
2-4 = torso
5 = arms (roll again to determine which arm; 1-3 = right arm, 4-6 = left arm)
6 = legs (roll again to determine which leg; 1-3 = right leg, 4-6 = left leg)

Pretty much, yeah. If you got a lucky roll and your target flubbed their dodge, it effectively took the target out of the fight. Either you dropped them, or you brought them to the very brink, at which point they either surrender, run away, or keep fighting despite crippling wound modifiers and go down with the next stiff breeze to hit them. It got to the point where if you wanted almost anyone dead, you rolled Edge and the extra dice and exploding sixes meant you could be dealing +9 DV from net hits + the crit damage, easy.

~Umi

I pretty much ignore the critical success rules altogether. (especially the bit about it refreshing a point of edge!)

12 dice on an unopposed success test is trivially easy for many tests. (4 attribute, 4 skill, 4 equipment)... even 10 dice produces slightly more than average all too often. In combat... you already have a reward in more damage soaked... more damage inflicted... In non-combat it's just way too easy to get a critical success to give them much stock.


I actually just started a thread over on SR4 before seeing this one about a proposed dice change...

In an opposed test... a critical success is when half your dice come up with NET successes.
In an unopposed test... a critical success is when 3/4 of your dice come up success. (this is still about a 2% or 1 in 50 chance for dice pools approaching 20!).

The advantage is that it doesn't pre-supposed a large pool... and doesn't break when people get large or small pools.


I've also suggested redoing glitches as well.
A glitch is when you roll more potential glitches than successes (1's... 1 & 2 on a rushed extended test is the only case i can think where that's more than only on a 1). Since you're twice as likely to roll a success as a glitch in all cases and it scales nicely with the number of dice rolled low or high... Glitches should be minor mishaps like a stovepipe jam... or funny/humorous...

Critical could be done similarly... if twice as many come up 1's as successes... something major happens. (i don't see a disconnect between a major mishap and still succeeding... there's a reason 'Pyrric Victory' is in the dictionary).