So, people hate fumbles.
My original Stormbringer game fizzled because the heroes fumbled poorly when trying to burgle a fat apothecarist and his 2 guards. One character broke his greatsword, another shot an arrow into a comrade. Since then, I have used fumbles sparingly, and often ask players what they think should happen.
Today, I ran across this post on a Facebook page:
"Any game (be it D&D/PF/WFRP/Runequest) ran by Joey:
Joey: This is a heroic campaign. You'll be mighty warriors of peerless skill and stuff of legends.
Also Joey: We're playing with my critical fumble house-rule meaning that every time your PC attacks and rolls a nat 1/below 5%/snake eyes they hit themselves or a nearby ally for full damage.
Folks, whatever you're doing, don't use fumbles. Failing hysterically at something you're supposed to be good at 5% of time just isn't heroic. If you want to use it, call the game slapstick comedy and not saga of legends."
How about instead of a BAD thing happening to the PCs, which detracts from heroism and imperils the shared story, we let a GOOD thing happen to the bad guys. Namely, for every fumble rolled, the opponents can turn one miss into a hit. Since PCs are usually well armed and armored, this heightens the tension and challenge without turning combat into comedy.
What about the reverse? Maybe give the PCs a free attack, or let them have some minor advantage they ask for (ie free retreat from combat, or time to grab an item, etc).
Anything is better than just fumbles.
