Good fumble rules

[Barstro]

That being said, I like melee fumble #6 (free grapple/trip) attempt. It's not stupid-slapstick, it's not spitefully crippling, it doesn't seem wildly out of character for a skilled combatant, and-- best of all-- it's controllable.

That can be spitefully crippling to a caster, though. Sure, those smug bastards deserve it, but still...

[Curmudgeon]

The only "fumble" rule I use is to make spellcasters have the same chance of failure as non-casters.

Spoiler: Spell failure house rule

Show

Every spell has a chance of failure during casting. If a 20th level Fighter attacking a straw training dummy misses 5% of all swings, the minimum chance of failure to cast any spell is also going to be 5%. This is separate from Arcane Spell Failure.

When a Fighter gets additional swings, the chances of missing in a round increase, and so should the chances of a Cleric/Druid/Wizard failing to cast a spell. The formula for spellcasting success is 19/20 = 95% for spell levels which are available to those primary spellcasters at class levels 1-5, (19/20)^2 = 90% for spells which first become available at class levels 6-10, (19/20)^3 = 86% for spells which first become available at levels 11-15, and (19/20)^4 = 81% for spells which are only available at levels 16+. That leads to the table below. When attempting to cast a spell, roll percentile dice; the spell is not cast if you fail to roll the required success percentage or less:

• spell level 0-3: 95% success rate
• spell level 4-5: 90%
• spell level 6-8: 86%
• spell level 9+: 81%

Note that the spell isn't wasted; the Fighter doesn't lose their sword when they fail to hit, and the spellcaster doesn't lose their spell when they fail to cast it on the above table; the cost is purely in the actions. Using items of spell completion (scrolls) or spell trigger (wands or staffs) is considered spellcasting (per the Dungeon Master's Guide), so roll to see if you succeed for those also. Activation of those items with Use Magic Device follows the same rule; if you don't succeed on the percentile roll then there's simply no result. Consuming potions isn't considered spellcasting, so they work as normal.

[martixy]

The only "fumble" rule I use is to make spellcasters have the same chance of failure as non-casters.

Spoiler: Spell failure house rule

Show

Every spell has a chance of failure during casting. If a 20th level Fighter attacking a straw training dummy misses 5% of all swings, the minimum chance of failure to cast any spell is also going to be 5%. This is separate from Arcane Spell Failure.

When a Fighter gets additional swings, the chances of missing in a round increase, and so should the chances of a Cleric/Druid/Wizard failing to cast a spell. The formula for spellcasting success is 19/20 = 95% for spell levels which are available to those primary spellcasters at class levels 1-5, (19/20)^2 = 90% for spells which first become available at class levels 6-10, (19/20)^3 = 86% for spells which first become available at levels 11-15, and (19/20)^4 = 81% for spells which are only available at levels 16+. That leads to the table below. When attempting to cast a spell, roll percentile dice; the spell is not cast if you fail to roll the required success percentage or less:

• spell level 0-3: 95% success rate
• spell level 4-5: 90%
• spell level 6-8: 86%
• spell level 9+: 81%

Note that the spell isn't wasted; the Fighter doesn't lose their sword when they fail to hit, and the spellcaster doesn't lose their spell when they fail to cast it on the above table; the cost is purely in the actions. Using items of spell completion (scrolls) or spell trigger (wands or staffs) is considered spellcasting (per the Dungeon Master's Guide), so roll to see if you succeed for those also. Activation of those items with Use Magic Device follows the same rule; if you don't succeed on the percentile roll then there's simply no result. Consuming potions isn't considered spellcasting, so they work as normal.

I actually really like that idea. Simple, consistent, non-crippling. Though I'd make it a d20 roll. At least it'd be easier for real-life rolls. Unless you specifically like rolling dice, which is your prerogative.

[Talakeal]

[*]The rules must be NON-ARBITRARY. They have to create situations that fit into the story rather than switch from heroic fantasy to slapstick.
.

Could you elaborate on this point? I find that the DM's ability to narrate the effects of a fumble to suite the mood of the scene to be a vital component of any good fumble system, and I can't tell if you are saying the same thing, the opposite, or something else entirely.

[dextercorvia]

The only "fumble" rule I use is to make spellcasters have the same chance of failure as non-casters.

Spoiler: Spell failure house rule

Show

Every spell has a chance of failure during casting. If a 20th level Fighter attacking a straw training dummy misses 5% of all swings, the minimum chance of failure to cast any spell is also going to be 5%. This is separate from Arcane Spell Failure.

When a Fighter gets additional swings, the chances of missing in a round increase, and so should the chances of a Cleric/Druid/Wizard failing to cast a spell. The formula for spellcasting success is 19/20 = 95% for spell levels which are available to those primary spellcasters at class levels 1-5, (19/20)^2 = 90% for spells which first become available at class levels 6-10, (19/20)^3 = 86% for spells which first become available at levels 11-15, and (19/20)^4 = 81% for spells which are only available at levels 16+. That leads to the table below. When attempting to cast a spell, roll percentile dice; the spell is not cast if you fail to roll the required success percentage or less:

• spell level 0-3: 95% success rate
• spell level 4-5: 90%
• spell level 6-8: 86%
• spell level 9+: 81%

Note that the spell isn't wasted; the Fighter doesn't lose their sword when they fail to hit, and the spellcaster doesn't lose their spell when they fail to cast it on the above table; the cost is purely in the actions. Using items of spell completion (scrolls) or spell trigger (wands or staffs) is considered spellcasting (per the Dungeon Master's Guide), so roll to see if you succeed for those also. Activation of those items with Use Magic Device follows the same rule; if you don't succeed on the percentile roll then there's simply no result. Consuming potions isn't considered spellcasting, so they work as normal.

You've balanced a martial characters extra chances at losing a portion of their rounds actions with an increased chance of the spellcaster losing their entire round's action.

Over 100 rounds, a stock level 20 martial character will attack 400 times, and miss 20 of those times, losing 5 full rounds' worth of actions. A spellcaster will cast (neglecting quickened spells) 100 spells. If they are of the highest level available, then the caster will lose 19 of those spells, corresponding to 19 full rounds of missed actions. The martial character's ratio does not get worse if # of attacks is optimized hire, he still only loses 5% of his rounds, and then seldom all at once. A caster who uses swift action spells to compensate, will still lose 19 rounds of actions out of 100.

I'm afraid you've gone the other way.

[Hiro Quester]

I'm playing a druid7/monk1 right now, making at least four attacks on a full attack round (in leopard wildshape). My DM uses fumble rules (if you roll a 1 on attack roll, then confirm the fumble by missing on another attempt on that attack).

His rule is that a fumble invalidates all other attacks that round too. So in addition to missing that attack, I miss all other attacks that round, and I have a (often kind of severe) further injury. Last night's game I "sprained" something, and took 2 points of Dex damage. Also would have fumbled On another attack that same encounter, but the effect let me make a fort save to avoid and I made the save.

I'd like to protest that these fumble rules penalize those who try for secondary attacks, TWF, and wildshape natural attacks, in which the strategy is many attacks each with little chance of succeeding, but hoping that dome few succeed.

Given that he likes using fumble rules, I'm better off trying to at least try to convince him that missing on a subsequent attack (at same to-hit) to confirm the fumble is unfair and counterintuitive. You should get better at avoiding fumbles as you progress, but gaining iterative attacks makes it more likely you will confirm a fumble on your second or third attack.

How to make the confirm condition more fair? Would making the confirm-fumble be an attack as though it was your primary attack, be a more fair way to confirm fumbles, if you have to have them in the game?

[The Evil DM]

I don't like - Roll a 1, you fumble. I agree with most that 1 in 20 is far too frequent. Even roll a 1 and confirm with a second miss gives far to high a frequency of negative events.

However,

I also believe that no matter how good one gets at something there is always a remote chance of something going wrong. Down here in Tucson there are nearly 1000 rock climbing routes in the nearby mountains. A few years back an expert climber was working his way up a 75 foot cliff - free climbing. The guy was an expert, had done this particular route dozens of times.

Well on this day something tragic happened. The entire cliff face fell off the mountain and landed on him. A block of rock 20 or so feet wide, 75 feet high and about 10 feet thick released from the face of the mountain and fell backwards onto this guy.

My "Fumble" system isn't so much about fumbles rather its more about acts of extreme fate.

So - if you roll a 1 on a d20 (for anything, skill checks attacks whatever) its auto miss. But I say roll again.

If you roll a second 1, I ask you to roll a third time. (1 in 400 here)

If you get anything other than a third 1 well then something very minor occurs, -1 to hit on your next attempt at an attack roll. maybe -2 on a skill check if you are rolling again.

But on the event of the third 1 I ask, roll again. (1 in 8000 here)

If you get anything other than a one on this roll something a little worse than minor occurs, but nothing severely detrimental.

But if you get a fourth 1 I ask to roll again (1 in 160,000 here)

If you get anything other than a fifth 1, I have several tables moderate things that can occur depending on the situation. Usually I pick a few appropriate responses and then randomly select from them.

If you get the fifth 1, I have a table of bad things. (1 in 3,200,000 here)

If you get to the sixth 1, I have a table of nasty fatal things. (1 in 64,000,000)

I have seen 6 ones in a row on d20 twice in 40 years of gaming.

[OldTrees1]

How to make the confirm condition more fair? Would making the confirm-fumble be an attack as though it was your primary attack, be a more fair way to confirm fumbles, if you have to have them in the game?

Well the simple naive answer is to have a BAB check. This makes it so that your iteriatives have the same chance of failing as your first attack & having high BAB decreases your chance of fumbling in spite of gaining more attacks.

But as I said, that is the naive answer. The sophisticated answer would also fix TWF, Flurry, Haste, and Natural Attacks. A crude attempt would be to gain a bonus of +2(arbitrarily chosen) per previous attack that round when you make a fumble check.

[Curmudgeon]

You've balanced a martial characters extra chances at losing a portion of their rounds actions with an increased chance of the spellcaster losing their entire round's action.

So you're assuming every spellcaster can only cast a 1-round spell? Usually it's more like a swift action spell, a standard action spell, and a move action. And the percentage chance of wasting the action is dependent on the strength of the spell, so lower-level spells are less likely to be deferred.

I'm afraid you've gone the other way.

While I dispute that, would it be such a bad thing? We all know spellcasters dominate the game at high levels. Having them occasionally take an extra action to cast a spell just gives non-spellcasters more time to shine.

[razorback]

From the other thread

My group of friends from grade school up grew up more on Rolemaster/MERPS than 1st and 2nd Ed (at the time), though we did play them. In the 3.x games I run I've ported over the RM carts.
That being said, for combat I run fumbles like criticals (which I have remade the RM charts for, too). You have to confirm. If you roll a 1 on the original roll, you confirm on (20 - BAB) on D100 with a second 1 always being a fumble. Not too complicated, even for the math challenged. So, after the fumble threat, a 19th+ fighter will have a 1% chance while the 1st level wizard will have a 20% chance of a true fumble on the confirmation.

I train with weapons multiple times a week. Escrima sticks, regular staves, knives, and swords every week along with nunchucks, wooden swords, ropes, small sticks, etc for years and mistakes happen.

At my table, once people get used to the difference, everyone likes it. No one has died directly from it and it adds another level of drama, suspense and excitement. And my players for the most part, when they DM, have adopted it because they think it is fun while they play. If it weren't, we would have discarded it years ago. We agree before any new game begins.

With the bold being a bit of a clarification.

The only "fumble" rule I use is to make spellcasters have the same chance of failure as non-casters.

Spoiler: Spell failure house rule

Show

Every spell has a chance of failure during casting. If a 20th level Fighter attacking a straw training dummy misses 5% of all swings, the minimum chance of failure to cast any spell is also going to be 5%. This is separate from Arcane Spell Failure.

When a Fighter gets additional swings, the chances of missing in a round increase, and so should the chances of a Cleric/Druid/Wizard failing to cast a spell. The formula for spellcasting success is 19/20 = 95% for spell levels which are available to those primary spellcasters at class levels 1-5, (19/20)^2 = 90% for spells which first become available at class levels 6-10, (19/20)^3 = 86% for spells which first become available at levels 11-15, and (19/20)^4 = 81% for spells which are only available at levels 16+. That leads to the table below. When attempting to cast a spell, roll percentile dice; the spell is not cast if you fail to roll the required success percentage or less:

• spell level 0-3: 95% success rate
• spell level 4-5: 90%
• spell level 6-8: 86%
• spell level 9+: 81%

Note that the spell isn't wasted; the Fighter doesn't lose their sword when they fail to hit, and the spellcaster doesn't lose their spell when they fail to cast it on the above table; the cost is purely in the actions. Using items of spell completion (scrolls) or spell trigger (wands or staffs) is considered spellcasting (per the Dungeon Master's Guide), so roll to see if you succeed for those also. Activation of those items with Use Magic Device follows the same rule; if you don't succeed on the percentile roll then there's simply no result. Consuming potions isn't considered spellcasting, so they work as normal.

I like aspects of this and my borrow and/or adapt in our game, with everyone's approval.

So, to elaborate. I think that fumbles should be decided by the group as a whole. If not everyone buys in, then you shouldn't use them. We use RM charts that have been modified to use 3.X terms rather than RM terms. Come up with a chart that everyone can agree upon.

Most people don't like fumbles. I get that. Not everyone wants high adventure. Some of want something resembling what we would imagine what would happen with 'realism' thrown in. Yes, I realize we are talking about a make believe game where wizards destroy gods, mundanes carrying as much as our normal military personel do and still run faster 100m dashes faster than the best olympians. But, adversity, whether external or self-inflicted by circumstances, feels great when overcome.
To take Alfred slightly out of context -

Why do we fall sir? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.

And, we eliminated any autokills if there were any on the charts from RM. I'd have to go back and check.

As far as the dummy test, I wouldn't run that as combat but more of a skill test because it's not active combat, nothing is swinging back at you, although the argument could be made that this is no different than someone who has chopped wood all their life and, one day, missed and ended up with a chunk of metal sticking out of their foot and/or leg.

[atemu1234]

Has anyone tried running this rule through the practice dummy test?

Spoilered below is the best fumble rule i have seen yet:

Spoiler: Best Fumble Rules Ever!

Show

none

Oh, you cheeky little... .

[Curmudgeon]

I actually really like that idea. Simple, consistent, non-crippling. Though I'd make it a d20 roll. At least it'd be easier for real-life rolls. Unless you specifically like rolling dice, which is your prerogative.

Oh, I'm perfectly happy for the players to use a d20 instead of percentile dice; I just didn't want any complaints that I was imposing a 20% failure chance when the math says it should only be 19%.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

- 1: Drop weapon.
- 2: Throw weapon to adjacent square.
- 3: Slip up(flatfooted until the beginning of your next turn).
- 4: Swing/Shoot into adjacent square. Any creatures in that square are considered concealed and flat-footed against this attack(roll to determine if more than 1 creature).
- 5: Lose all remaining actions for the round.
- 6: Opponent gains immediate free grapple/trip attempt, no AoO allowed.

#1, #2, #4, and #5 are all major issues. In my opinion Fumbles, if implemented, should not unduly inconvenience the attacker.

I'd prefer something like the following, if I was forced to implement a Fumble system:

1: Opponent may attempt to Disarm you as an Immediate Action.
2: Opponent may attempt to Trip you as an Immediate Action.
3: Opponent may attempt to Grapple you as an Immediate Action.
4: Opponent gets an Attack of Opportunity against you.
5: All adjacent opponents OTHER than your target get an Attack of Opportunity against you.
6: You are flat-footed for the next attack made against you.

There's no auto-lose: the opponent gets a free action to do things, but still must be able to reliably beat you (or hit you) with those things. You won't throw your sword away when fighting a training dummy, but a skilled opponent might take advantage of your recovery to knock your weapon aside. These rules also give power to your OPPONENT, making it more fun for the PCs when the MONSTERS fumble, rather than seeing small penalties applied to them.

[dextercorvia]

While I dispute that, would it be such a bad thing? We all know spellcasters dominate the game at high levels. Having them occasionally take an extra action to cast a spell just gives non-spellcasters more time to shine.

I would like to see the reasoning behind the dispute. I posted fairly clear math that shows that your increased failure rates for spellcasters means they lose more actions than an equal leveled martial character regardless of how many attacks or spells are used each round.

As to the 'would it be so bad', I think Grod's law would apply here. Balancing bad mechanics (spellcasting being inherently better than attacking) by making them more annoying to use is not the answer. I would argue that this makes it more likely that spellcasters will do their thing outside of combat, where there is no impact to losing the action. I can see spellcasters moving toward either minion abuse or buffing up and outshining the less magical martial characters.

[Curmudgeon]

I would like to see the reasoning behind the dispute. I posted fairly clear math ...

Your math ignores quickened spells, immediate spells, and swift spells. That's rubbish unless you're proposing to ban casting more than once per round.

[SinsI]

Bad things should happen to characters only in two cases:
1) they made some risky decision
2) antagonists did something to them

Fumbles are neither.
The only "fumble" rules mentioned in the top thread worth considering are the ones where the character is given a choice to accept something bad bad from the random fumble table but in exchange gets an additional reward (i.e. Action Point). In that case fumbles no longer come from a dumb luck but from a conscious decision made by the player - thus those bad things are acceptable.

[Talakeal]

Bad things should happen to characters only in two cases:
1) they made some risky decision
2) antagonists did something to them

Might I ask why?

This seems to fly in the face of virtually all of my experiences with both reality and fiction. Even children's cartoons and games like Candy Land contain elements of failure and disappointment.

[Curmudgeon]

Bad things should happen to characters only in two cases:
1) they made some risky decision
2) antagonists did something to them

So wandering monsters don't exist? Bad weather can't happen naturally? Unless you consider living outside of a fortified cave as a "risky decision", I don't think these are good D&D parameters. You'll suck all the spontaneity out of the game world.

[dextercorvia]

Your math ignores quickened spells, immediate spells, and swift spells. That's rubbish unless you're proposing to ban casting more than once per round.

A caster who uses swift action spells to compensate, will still lose 19 rounds of actions out of 100.

It does not. A Wizard who has an 19% spell failure chance is going to lose 19% of his spells, which means losing 19% of his actions. Expand the example I gave above to include a swift or immediate action in ever round. In 100 rounds, he is now casting 200 spells, and losing 38 of them, which amounts to 19 of his rounds being negated -- the exact same as the wizard casting only a single spell per round.

If a fighter attacks 1 time per round for 100 rounds, he loses 5 attacks on average, or 5 rounds. If a different fighter attacks 20 times per round, he'll make 2000 attacks in 100 rounds, but lose 100 of them -- 5 rounds worth.

Whatever you set the failure rate at -- that will be the percent of rounds that are negated in the long run, no matter how many actions you are allowed in the round. So, by giving spellcasters an increased chance of lost actions, you are negating more of their rounds

There is nothing wrong with giving spells a failure chance, but it is actually more equal if you set it at the same 5% as weapon attacks have. Even there you still double up with Ray spells receiving two failure chances. That should be addressed.

[Curmudgeon]

It does not. A Wizard who has an 19% spell failure chance is going to lose 19% of his spells, which means losing 19% of his actions.

The Wizard won't lose 19% of anything. They will only fail to cast 19% of 9th level spells; the delay percentage is lower for less powerful spells. If they're trying to cast a 3rd level swift action spell the chance of that spell being delayed is only 5%.

[SinsI]

So wandering monsters don't exist? Bad weather can't happen naturally? Unless you consider living outside of a fortified cave as a "risky decision", I don't think these are good D&D parameters. You'll suck all the spontaneity out of the game world.

Being outside in bad weather is either a risky behaviour or a kind of antagonist, wondering monsters are antagonists. But a banana peel that you slip on and break your neck is neither.

[Curmudgeon]

Bad weather and wondering monsters are antagonists.

Wandering monsters with no hostile intent aren't antagonists. Clouds have no feelings, and thus can't be antagonistic.

[SinsI]

Wandering monsters with no hostile intent aren't antagonists. Clouds have no feelings, and thus can't be antagonistic.

If they have no hostile intent they won't attack the party. And having feelings or not doesn't matter - what is important is that PCs can do something about them, be it in the form of staying at home or casting Control Winds.

[Hrugner]

I've been playing with critical fumbles provoking an attack of opportunity from the target, is that a house rule I just forgot was a house rule?

Regardless, it ends up working in the favor of the party since for the most part the party has more attacks incoming than out going which results in them getting more attacks against large groups of weaker targets. Combat reflexes becomes a must for most martials, but that doesn't seem like too bad of a change.

[nyjastul69]

I've been playing with critical fumbles provoking an attack of opportunity from the target, is that a house rule I just forgot was a house rule?

Regardless, it ends up working in the favor of the party since for the most part the party has more attacks incoming than out going which results in them getting more attacks against large groups of weaker targets. Combat reflexes becomes a must for most martials, but that doesn't seem like too bad of a change.

Yes it is a house rule. That house rule causes your players to take a feat tax. It doesn't help them in any way regardless of incoming or outgoing attacks.

[Brookshw]

Yes it is a house rule. That house rule causes your players to take a feat tax. It doesn't help them in any way regardless of incoming or outgoing attacks.

I don't think taking something because its effably useful in extent is quite the same thing as a feat tax. Sounds like he's talking about something that seems to be a bit common sense in the face of its intrinsic value, like natural spell for druids.

[The Vagabond]

I always used the "If you roll a 1, you may permit something interesting to happen to you in exchange for a Hero/Action point." An example would be for reinforcement to arrive, a vial of oil to fall over and catch the building on fire, your weapon to get stuck in their chest, you fall out the window into the cooking quarters, stuff like that. Stuff to make it more intresting, rather than simply as a punishment.

[nyjastul69]

I don't think taking something because its effably useful in extent is quite the same thing as a feat tax. Sounds like he's talking about something that seems to be a bit common sense in the face of its intrinsic value, like natural spell for druids.

Maybe feat tax was the wrong term. But the house rule seems to have created a situation where CR is basically a 'must have' feat. This, to me, is a clear sign that the house rule should be reevaluated.

It's just another in the litany of reasons why fumble rules tend to suck.

[SkipSandwich]

This isn't precisely related to fumbles per se, but when dealing with special actions that provoke some sort of retaliation from the defender on a failure, rather then requiring a separate roll the retaliation just happens automatically if you fail the opposed roll by 5 or more. I find this both speeds up play (less rolls, easy to remember results) and is easily fluffed as the result of a 'fumble'. Examples;

Trip: If you win, you trip the opponent, if you fail the opponent avoids or resists the trip, if you fail by 5 or more your opponent trips you in retaliation (no roll, you may drop your weapon as normal to avoid being tripped)

Disarm: If you win the opposed check the opponent is disarmed, failure nothing happens, fail by 5 or more and your opponent may disarm you in retaliation (no roll)

Bull Rush/Overrun: Win and shove back/past opponent as normal, failure your movement ends with you on your feet adjacent to the target, fail by 5 or more and you end up prone in a square of the opponent's choosing

Grapple/Pin: Win the check to maintain a grapple/pin or break free of one, win a grapple check by 5 or more and your opponent is now pinned (the +5 is only required to start a pin, not maintain one). Fail the check to maintain a grapple and your opponent may choose to escape, fail a check to maintain a pin and the pin is released (you are still grappling), fail a grapple check by 5 or more and your opponent may choose to pin you, if pinning the opponent, a failure by 5 or more means they not only escape the pin but can immediately escape the grapple if they so choose. A character resisting a grapple with Escape Artist may only escape from a grapple/pin and may not choose to continue the grapple or pin the opponent in retaliation.

Aid Another: You may attempt greater aid by declaring a higher DC for the check, for every 5 point increase you assign to the DC, the bonus increases by +1 (max bonus +8 at DC 40), declare your target DC before you roll. Fail the check by 5 or more points and your attempt to help ends up interfering instead, causing a penalty equal to one-half the bonus you attempted to provide.

Normal attacks never provoke fumbles, and skilled characters are less likely to fumble against opponents less skilled then themselves when they attempt a special maneuver.

[Brookshw]

Maybe feat tax was the wrong term. But the house rule seems to have created a situation where CR is basically a 'must have' feat. This, to me, is a clear sign that the house rule should be reevaluated.

I get where your coming from but a lot of new rules, once introduced, already make things "must have" in the sense they can provide significant value to wide ranges of characters, for example whirling frenzy barbarian which is not a default element of the game but if introduced becomes a major bonus for just about any melee character. Certainly its always worth considering how any rule introduced may affect the power of characters in the game.

It's just another in the litany of reasons why fumble rules tend to suck.

Eh, my players still fondly remember and joke about our bygone crit and fumble tables which brings us back to the OP, to which I would respond good fumble rules are those conducive to the nature of, and fun had by the players and DM equally in, a particular game or campaign, and should only be evaluated on their merit in such applications. No one size game fits all groups and no one sized opinion or consensus regarding fumble rules would be sufficient to address any and all possible nuance of preference in the wide variety that exist in various groups.