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?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Right, but the difference between stabbing someone accidentally and a weapon breaking accidentally is that the PC has no control and is not in any way responsible for the weapon breaking.

I don't quite follow. The PC is responsible for swinging the weapon. The player/PC decided to swing the weapon, and the outcome - in either case - is a direct result of extremely poor execution of that action. Either the PC whiffed so badly that their momentum carried through and hit someone else, or they whiffed so badly that their momentum carried through and into a stone wall which caused the weapon to break. It's the same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't quite follow. The PC is responsible for swinging the weapon. The player/PC decided to swing the weapon, and the outcome - in either case - is a direct result of extremely poor execution of that action. Either the PC whiffed so badly that their momentum carried through and hit someone else, or they whiffed so badly that their momentum carried through and into a stone wall which caused the weapon to break. It's the same thing.

How did the swing create the flaw in the weapon that finally caused it to break? It didn't. The PC had zero to do with why the weapon broke.

 

[Imaro]

I don't quite follow. The PC is responsible for swinging the weapon. The player/PC decided to swing the weapon, and the outcome - in either case - is a direct result of extremely poor execution of that action. Either the PC whiffed so badly that their momentum carried through and hit someone else, or they whiffed so badly that their momentum carried through and into a stone wall which caused the weapon to break. It's the same thing.

Or it's a direct result of the sword having been forged incorrectly or with shoddy materials... or normal wear and tear (not even swords ast forever), or... in other words the sword breaking does not have to be related to the skill or proficiency of the user whatsoever.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How did the swing create the flaw in the weapon that finally caused it to break? It didn't. The PC had zero to do with why the weapon broke.

How did the swing create the flaw in the ally, which caused them to die after being struck? It's the same thing.

It doesn't require a previously-undetected flaw in order for a weapon to break. You just need to whack it really hard against a big rock. (If the GM describes the sword breaking by making up a new fact that it apparently had an undetected flaw, then that would be the same sort of internal-vs-external issue as spontaneously conjuring a swarm of guards.)

Or it's a direct result of the sword having been forged incorrectly or with shoddy materials... or normal wear and tear (not even swords ast forever), or... in other words the sword breaking does not have to be related to the skill or proficiency of the user whatsoever.

If that was the case, then it would be true regardless of what I rolled for my attack. It's impossible for the act of swinging the sword to cause it to have been forged incorrectly in the first place. That just plain violates causality.

 

[Imaro]

If that was the case, then it would be true regardless of what I rolled for my attack. It's impossible for the act of swinging the sword to cause it to have been forged incorrectly in the first place. That just plain violates causality.

Why? do you think all flawed swords break on the first hit upon something every time? Do you think the majority of swords that broke in history were because they were perfectly forged of the best materials and when they broke it was the first time they happened to hit something really really hard (with no external reasoning behind why after numerous uses they broke at this particular moment?)... think about that for a moment.

EDIT: The rolling of a 1 when performing the act of swinging the sword is the reason you happened to strike it at the weak point where it broke (ie a fumble or intrusion, these are the rules of the game we are talking about here)... it doesn't create the flaw in the sword (no sword is perfect). Causality is maintained because the fumble/intrusion still happens due to your action and yet it's cause is an external circumstance (being forged badly, of shoddy material, having a weak point, etc.).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why? do you think all flawed swords break on the first hit upon something every time? Do you think the majority of swords that broke in history were because they were perfectly forged of the best materials and when they broke it was the first time they happened to hit something really really hard (with no external reasoning behind why after numerous uses they broke at this particular moment?)... think about that for a moment.

That's not what an attack roll is, though. An attack roll is explicitly a check for how well you swing the sword. It's not a check for what else in the world could possibly go wrong to interfere with your swing, or what circumstances might have surrounded the creation of this weapon at some point in the past.

If you want to track weapon integrity as a separate factor, with its own set of checks involved, then go ahead. That's not part of the attack roll, though.

 

[Imaro]

That's not what an attack roll is, though. An attack roll is explicitly a check for how well you swing the sword. It's not a check for what else in the world could possibly go wrong to interfere with your swing, or what circumstances might have surrounded the creation of this weapon at some point in the past.

Uhm... no. In the Cypher system any roll of a 1 is a GM intrusion without the benefit of an xp award. A GM intrusion has been explained in previous posts in this thread if you need a reference... but one thing a roll of 1 is not... is explicitly a check for how well you swing the sword (though it could easily be that if you want it to). A roll of 1 is very much permission to decide what else could possibly interfere with your swing or what circumstances might have surrounded the creation of this weapon at some point in the past(as well as much, much more).

If you want to track weapon integrity as a separate factor, with its own set of checks involved, then go ahead. That's not part of the attack roll, though.

We are talking about GM intrusions... they are triggered by rolling a 1 (on any roll, not just attacks)... that is what this entire article Monte wrote is about...

 

[Maxperson]

How did the swing create the flaw in the ally, which caused them to die after being struck? It's the same thing.

That's a joke, right? The only way that makes any kind of sense in response to what I said is as a joke.

It doesn't require a previously-undetected flaw in order for a weapon to break. You just need to whack it really hard against a big rock. (If the GM describes the sword breaking by making up a new fact that it apparently had an undetected flaw, then that would be the same sort of internal-vs-external issue as spontaneously conjuring a swarm of guards.)

So what. It's utterly, entirely and 100% irrelevant if a flaw is required for it to break or not. Only the narrative of the fumble matters. Your last sentence is also utter bupkis. An undetected flaw that was there the entire time and finally broke the weapon isn't even remotely close to spontaneously conjuring up guards.

If that was the case, then it would be true regardless of what I rolled for my attack. It's impossible for the act of swinging the sword to cause it to have been forged incorrectly in the first place.

Um. That's the point. It's not the PC that caused it to break. It was the fumble. However, the swing is still causally linked to the breaking since the sword would not have broken without the swing.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what an attack roll is, though. An attack roll is explicitly a check for how well you swing the sword.

It's not explicitly a check for that at all. It's explicitly a check to see if you hit or miss. Period. You can hit with a crappy swing and miss with a very skilled swing. How well you swing is irrelevant.

It's not a check for what else in the world could possibly go wrong to interfere with your swing, or what circumstances might have surrounded the creation of this weapon at some point in the past.

A fumble is.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So what. It's utterly, entirely and 100% irrelevant if a flaw is required for it to break or not. Only the narrative of the fumble matters. Your last sentence is also utter bupkis. An undetected flaw that was there the entire time and finally broke the weapon isn't even remotely close to spontaneously conjuring up guards.

If a previous flaw is required for the break, and that flaw isn't established until you make the attack, then it's in exactly the same category as conjuring up guards - the category of outcomes which cannot possibly be follow from the action which causes them. Swinging a sword cannot cause a flaw to have existed before you swung it, just like swinging a sword cannot cause guards to appear where previously none existed. They are the same gross violation of causality.

Um. That's the point. It's not the PC that caused it to break. It was the fumble. However, the swing is still causally linked to the breaking since the sword would not have broken without the swing.

Fumbles aren't real things, within the game world. You can't ascribe blame to the fumble itself. The poor outcome of the swing is the fault of the PC who swung so poorly. It's the fault of the PC that they were such a terrible fighter that they managed to break their sword against a rock. Everyone within the world can see it, and see how the outcome followed logically from the action.