Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics

Fumble mechanics have been part of the tabletop RPG experience for decades. Even where games don't have a fumble mechanic, many players house rule them in. A fumble is the opposite of a critical hit (or critical success) - its most common manifestation is a roll of 1 in a d20-based game (with a roll of 20 being the critical). Veteran game designer Monte Cook has some thoughts on fumble mechanics, and talks about them and how his Numenera RPG (and all of the Cypher System line) use an "intrusion" instead.

​

It can be a divisive issue. If you're like me, you've experimented with fumble mechanics of various kinds over the years. When I was 12, I remember one character accidentally shooting a fellow character in the back of the head and killing him. Monte Cook's thoughts on the matter are that "we don’t want to run games that “punish” players for rolling bad. A GM intrusion isn’t meant to be “punishment”—it’s meant to make things more interesting. But a fumble, for many people, just seems like a moment for everyone to laugh at them, and that’s not always fun."

If you look around, you'll find dozens of fumble house rules for most games. They clearly provide a draw to those who like to tinker with their games. But many games deliberately do not include any such rule.

You can read the rest of Monte's article here. What are your thoughts on fumble mechanics?

 

[Celebrim]

It's fallacious arguing. They have to point out the most extreme and absurd situations in order to feel right about their positions, even though such extremes are not at all required on any fumble chart.

I agree that it is a wholly fallacious argument but I know where they are coming from, because I've seen it personally and heard of it second hand.

Many oldbies experience with fumbles and critical hits comes almost entirely from the Dragon article 'Good misses and bad hits'. A few might have experience with Warhammer Fantasy or Rolemaster, which have their own issues, but this being primarily a D&D forum it's mostly going to be those old unofficially fumble and critical tables.

That article had a lot of awesomeness to it, which is why it was so influential and popular, but it also had a lot of fail in it. For the most part, the fumble and critical results on the tables weren't tested for reasonableness by the table itself. Whatever the table said simply happened. So for example, a non-magical sword was basically just as likely to break as a +6 holy avenger.

One of the good things about the rules though was that the chance of you fumbling decreased as you got more skilled. The rules presented by the article said that the chance of a critical was a percentage equal to the difference in your modified to hit roll and the number you needed to hit. So for example, if your character needed a modified 14 to hit, and you rolled a modified 22, then you'd have an 8% chance of a critical. On the other hand if you rolled a modified 6, you'd have an 8% chance of a fumble.

That worked pretty well but it generated a ton of fumbles and criticals, and a lot of the results on the table were pretty extreme - critically hit self being an example. D&D combat wasn't naturally very gritty, but if you threw in the fumble and critical rules from the article it would get pretty darn brutal in a hurry. High level fighters - already arguably OP in 1e after Weapon Specialization was introduced - would generate critical hits on like 10-15% of their attacks, often ending the fight right then and there.

To make matters worse though, quite a few tables house ruled the article to simply it so that you always fumbled on a 1 and always had a critical on a 20. That common house rule is actually the direct ancestor of the 3e critical hit rules. But unlike the 3e rules, this wasn't just a threat to critical, but an automatic critical or fumble. So if you had 2 or 3 attacks per round, every attack you made was a chance to roll a 1 and critically hit yourself or your ally. Naturally, things like that would happen all the time.

If that is your whole experience with fumbles, then you probably automatically imagine those situations whenever you hear the word 'fumble'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You can't have it both ways. Either you're building scenarios specifically for world building purposes or you are building scenarios that would be fun to play through. You can't have both. As soon as you decide "fun to play through" is a criteria, then world building considerations take a back seat. IOW, your 6th level necromancer raising undead is 6th level, not because it makes world building sense, but because you are building a scenario for characters of a specific range of levels. There's a reason the necromancer isn't 3rd level or 12th level and it has zero to do with "impartiality" and everything to do with building a fun scenario.

I don't think anything is this black and white. You can always blend things. You can design with an eye toward both, trying to keep them in balance, shifting from one to the other, etc. I love world building, and love designing believable worlds, but I don't ignore adventure potential and that is one of my top considerations as well. It isn't a matter of only being able to design toward one goal, it is more like you have a list of criteria you are weighing as you design.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, in the white room you have unlimited monsters. In the reality of game play, though, your monsters are highly limited. You don't go anywhere near throwing unlimited monsters at the PCs. If you did, they'd die no matter what.

Since it's a fact that the DM is going to limit the number of monsters PCs encounter, crits are going to favor the PCs since they crit many times more often.

Nope, they really aren't. It doesn't matter how many monsters you kill, I have an unlimited supply of new ones that will never, ever run out. And, no, PC's don't crit many times more often simply because the PC's attack far, far less than the monsters.

A group of 10th level 5e character, say 5 PC's, 2 fighter types, a cleric, wizard and thief are adventuring. They get 7 attacks per round, presuming they attack every round and don't cast spells. There might be some exceptions - feats, that sort of thing - but, by and large 7 attacks is all they get. 10th level party, I'll throw half a dozen troll at them. Not an overwhelming encounter by any stretch right? Guess what? I've got 12 attacks per round from those trolls. Even if you crit twce as often, which 5e characters don't (only Champions get higher crit ranges), I've still got twice as may attacks per round as you. I will crit more often than you will.

In 3e, which is where this little sidebar started, it gets even worse. Standard party is 4 PC's. Monsters frequently have 3 attacks per round. The party has, maybe, 5, 6 attacks per round. The monsters can have easily twice, or even three times more attacks per round than the party with little difficulty. Again, it doesn't matter what your crit range is. I am guaranteed to crit more often, simply because no single character comes remotely close to the number of times that the DM rolls, and even the group combined still lags behind.

 

[delericho]

Nope, they really aren't. It doesn't matter how many monsters you kill, I have an unlimited supply of new ones that will never, ever run out. And, no, PC's don't crit many times more often simply because the PC's attack far, far less than the monsters.

This. All the rest of the post, too.

In 3e, which is where this little sidebar started, it gets even worse. Standard party is 4 PC's. Monsters frequently have 3 attacks per round. The party has, maybe, 5, 6 attacks per round...

Yep. Plus the party is likely to have at least one PC casting spells which tend to require saves rather than attack rolls. So that cuts down on the number of crits, too.

 

[Imaro]

That could have been a critical on Vader's part, not a fumble on Luke's.

I agree... key points being...

1. That mechanic does not exist in D&D for crits and thus must be a new mechanic
2. It could be modeled as a fumble or as a crit... and thus could serve as an example of either one... (either way, in D&D the mechanic for modeling this does not exist and if we want to recreate it possibilities include creating a mechanic that lies at either the failure or success end of the spectrum)

 

[Hussar]

/snip



There is still a limit here to the effects that can be produced by these failures... correct? What this does is set the precedent for what a failure constitutes in these particular games... however if a group (for whatever reason) wants a wider variety of results, more severe results, or even to give the GM the power to decide a specific and more relevant result of failure... well then fumble rules could be introduced to take care of that and thus a "need" for fumble rules arises.

What I don't understand is how you and others like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are dismissing examples of "fumbles" when there is no default game system we are discussing to determine whether they can or can't be modeled without fumble rules? Yes I'm sure somewhere for every example presented you can find a particular system that could model it without recourse to fumble rules... but the point is no system is capable of modelling all possibilities of these failures and thus the "need" as well as what constitutes a "fumble" is entirely group and rules system dependent.

But, since the examples you presented don't actually require a separate system, then what's the point? We differentiate a critical hit from a regular hit quite easily. One does considerably more damage than another. We know, both in game and out, when a critical hit has been scored. There's no waffling going on here. The crit deals more damage than the regular attack could.

But, apparently, there's nothing to distinguish a critical failure from a regular failure. They look exactly the same. Well, why bother then? Why have another system when the results are the same? If Han stepping on a twig give the same results whether or not you treat it as a failure of a Stealth Check or a "Critical" failure of Stealth Check, then there's absolutely nothing being modelled here.

Luke having his hand chopped off is not a failure on Luke's part but a critical success on Vader's. Note, after the hand is chopped off, the fight is over. Vader wins. This is simply a perfect example of why HP does not equal meat. This is a perfect example of a PC being reduced to negative HP.

If two systems don't actually have any real difference, then what's the point of having two systems? Why have a critical fumble system that gives you identical results to a simple fail system? It's complexity for no purpose. It adds zero to the game.

What fumble results do you see arising that are not covered by simple failures?

And note, in the Han example, you cannot actually critical fumble skill checks in any edition of D&D. D&D cannot, and has never been able to, give you a critical fail condition on a skill check.

 

[Hussar]

I agree... key points being...

1. That mechanic does not exist in D&D for crits and thus must be a new mechanic
2. It could be modeled as a fumble or as a crit... and thus could serve as an example of either one... (either way, in D&D the mechanic for modeling this does not exist and if we want to recreate it possibilities include creating a mechanic that lies at either the failure or success end of the spectrum)

How, exactly, would this be modelled as a critical fumble check for Luke? How does Luke's critical failure result in Vader cutting his arm off? In none of the systems presented does a critical failure cause an enemy to kill/incapacitate you.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not even sure you guys in the sub-thread arguing over how fiction that wasn't produced by a gaming process maps to vague hypothetical rules of a game know what you are arguing about.

Because almost all games have a degree of DM fiat, and because we do not actually know the game state of a particular non-game fiction, we can't say for certain what is going on in game terms in any particular non-game fiction. I hope that is obvious.

Take for example Vadar slashing off the arm of Luke.

This wasn't produced by a game mechanic. It was written into a story by a writer not carrying about how it could be gamed. But there are an almost infinite number of imaginable game mechanics that could have created that fiction. It could have been a special effect of the weapon - maybe all lightsabers are defined has having the equivalent of the D&D 'sharpness' trait. See for example the discussion of running a particular sharpness weapon in the 2e D&D module 'Axe of the Dwarven Lords'.

It could be that the system being used had critical hits and one possible critical hit was remove limb at wrist.

It could be that the system in question had no hit points, but had hit locations and wound severity and that a wound of a certain severity to a the arm (however that severity was generated) indicated dismemberment.

It could be that this is a narrativist system of some sort, and that however it was determined Luke lost the scene and now is losing an arm as part of some well defined fail forward mechanic that ensures that regardless of whether Luke wins or loses his scene with Vadar, the plot goes on.

It could be a diceless system, and the players of Luke and Vadar negotiated this ending in some fashion before playing it out.

We can't know what system is in play. We can only speculate how in a particular system that scene might be generated, or if it indeed could be generated.

As far as fumbles go, D&D by default doesn't have them and can't generate them with mechanical consequences (with very few exceptions, Use Magical Device skill checks being one example). But any common failure can be colored as a fumble, and since we can't know the mechanics of the system used in the fiction in question (again people, it doesn't exist!), and we don't know the stakes because we don't know the counterfactuals the way we would in a game state, we can't know if for example a failure we see of a character in star wars represents color of a fumble or actual mechanical fumble consequences. There is no point in arguing about the details of the game system being played in the movie Star Wars. I only brought it up to serve as an illustration of true high action fantasy heroes bumbling through scenes and yet still being heroes.

All we can say for sure is that if you want to create a fiction like the movie Star Wars, your heroes will have to be able to fail and have the color of failure. How we implement that is a very broad topic with a wide range of options. Fumbles aren't essential to it, but aren't ruled out by the fiction either, because the heroes do have serious missteps - many more than people are remembering I think.

 

[Celebrim]

How, exactly, would this be modelled as a critical fumble check for Luke? How does Luke's critical failure result in Vader cutting his arm off? In none of the systems presented does a critical failure cause an enemy to kill/incapacitate you.

The participants could be playing a system were NPCs - in order to speed play and in order to increase player agency - never actually make dice rolls. In this hypothetical system, how well Luke does on his Hack and Slash skill check determines whether he gets hit, whether he hits the target, or whether nothing happens. If this system has fumbles and criticals, then 'Take a Critical Wound' is the result of Luke's fumble (maybe failure to hit the target DC by 10 or more).

Dungeon World has mechanics that aren't very different from that.

 

[Imaro]

But, since the examples you presented don't actually require a separate system, then what's the point? We differentiate a critical hit from a regular hit quite easily. One does considerably more damage than another. We know, both in game and out, when a critical hit has been scored. There's no waffling going on here. The crit deals more damage than the regular attack could.

Where are the rules for severing limbs?

But, apparently, there's nothing to distinguish a critical failure from a regular failure. They look exactly the same. Well, why bother then? Why have another system when the results are the same? If Han stepping on a twig give the same results whether or not you treat it as a failure of a Stealth Check or a "Critical" failure of Stealth Check, then there's absolutely nothing being modelled here.

I think you missed the entire point... the point was that a "fumble" does not have to equate with a stick through someone's eye... not that there shouldn't be a difference. In a previous post I listed some differences but it's all system and user dependent... that's what you keep missing. Han stepping on the twig doesn't give the result... as I remember you post Han has to step on a twig and loose initiative... so mechanically they are not the same thing even if they appear similar when described. For that matter why have different weapons that do 1d8? whether it can be wielded using strength or dexterity the result is the same... right?? Wrong the mechanics and details matter.

Luke having his hand chopped off is not a failure on Luke's part but a critical success on Vader's. Note, after the hand is chopped off, the fight is over. Vader wins. This is simply a perfect example of why HP does not equal meat. This is a perfect example of a PC being reduced to negative HP.

Prove it? Otherwise your assertion of it being a critical is no more or less valid than my assertion that it's a fumble on Luke's part... and in D&D crits don't sever limbs... so basically we're bith just making up systems to cover something colored by our aesthetic preferences. Honestly my players would better take loosing a limb if they made a low roll than because an NPC made a high roll... but again that's the point it's preference.

If two systems don't actually have any real difference, then what's the point of having two systems? Why have a critical fumble system that gives you identical results to a simple fail system? It's complexity for no purpose. It adds zero to the game.

Because how you get to the result is also important??

What fumble results do you see arising that are not covered by simple failures?

All of the examples... what you've shown is that multiple failures at multiple checks can cause a situation to arise that mimics what happens on the single fumble roll... but what you haven't shown is how just from Han stepping on the twig (not also failing an initiative roll or a surprise check as well) the results that transpired come about. Do you get the difference?

And note, in the Han example, you cannot actually critical fumble skill checks in any edition of D&D. D&D cannot, and has never been able to, give you a critical fail condition on a skill check.

And you do realize people are talking about everything from D&D to RM to Numenera to BW... why do you keep assuming we're speaking to D&D?

As to your actual assertion... it's incorrect. In 5e DMG page 242 there is the "Degrees of Failure" & "Critical Success or Failure" options which very much allows a group playing D&D to have a "critical fumble"...