Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7695044" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Howdy. Thanks for stopping by.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you are right about how most people use the word. What I want you to notice is that "a major screw-up" and "something that doesn't just maintain the status quo, but directly increases the challenge for the players" are largely synonymous definitions. When you screw up, it's because you make things worse for yourself. I'm not sure it matters why that happens, per se, as for example we don't as an audience tend to distinguish Inspector Clouseau's extreme ineptness from the perverse manner the universe also seems to be out to get him and object's uncannily break whenever he touches them. It's all fodder for the comedy. More on that latter.</p><p></p><p>But I don't think the major source of disagreement is over what you think it is. I fully understand that Monte is saying both that a 1 is a fumble by definition #1 and that the complication doesn't have to be a the result of character incompetence. The source of the disagreement is somewhat different.</p><p></p><p>First, I deny that it's necessarily or even regularly better for the game that a complication resulting from a player proposition isn't fumbled as the result of character incompetence. I deny that because I feel that disassociated mechanics are in general less satisfying and more problematic for the player than associated mechanics. If I'm shooting an arrow at an orc, it's certainly possible that the worst case scenario is just as I let fly a hitherto unseen hurtling red dragon swoops out of the clouds between me and the orc and blocks my shot, and takes a certain umbrage at me shooting at him. And yes, you might say, "Well that wasn't character incompetence. These sort of things just happen; could have happened to anyone." But then you are creating a world where the player and the character feel less in control of what happens than one where his own screw ups are in the range of possibility. It's not like you are making the throw of the 1 less common by imagining disassociated random happenings happening. The character still misses the shot just as often, and even when these things don't seem like they are the character's fault exactly, they still will seem like the sort of things that a more competent hero could have avoided. I'd rather my character occasionally shoot himself in the foot than live in a bizarro world that twisted just because I threw a 1 when I tried something. Nothing is meaner to a player than removing any sense that his actions have predictable logical consequences, which you eventually start throwing out the window if failures have to be blamed on something other than the player's relative ineptitude. We went from being not quite competent enough to attempt something heroic, to cause not implying effect. Welcome to Kragworld. </p><p></p><p>And secondly, while you can disassociate the fiction from the proposition, I don't think you can disassociate the proposition from the game. Everyone at the table still knows that red dragon swooped down just at that moment because your character threw a 1. If we really should be worried about other players or the GM being 'mean' to us because our character fumbled, the surely we shouldn't be playing in a system where a 1 meant complications arose on failure. Honestly, I think Monte's advice is only necessary because the only mitigation mechanic that makes such fumbles less rare involves an annoyance tax. </p><p></p><p>I have no idea what is fun for other people.</p><p></p><p>But I'll take putting the droid's head on backwards, ending the conversation by blasting the microphone, stepping on the stick and getting backhanded, sticking my prong in the power socket, hotwiring the door and closing a second blast door, getting the hydrospanners dropped on my head while I'm trying to fix the hyperdrive I failed to fix right before the battle, and all the other goofy things that heroes do while they are saving the galaxy over a GM being empowered to introduce whatever out of fiction thing he can conjure out of the air to up the stakes. All that unpredictability is the not-fun part. Disassociated mechanics are stronger anti-player antagonism than major screw ups are, and do nothing to protect my wee little feelings from the stinging barbs of my fellow players when throwing the 1 causes whatever the heck its going to cause makes them laugh their heads off if in fact I'm going to get my ego bruised by something like that.</p><p></p><p>And as far as the notion of coddling goes, it wasn't the idea that the GM was making the players work less hard to succeed that struck me as coddling. What struck me as coddling was the notion that the player should have this image of their own character as the type that never screws up regardless of the circumstances, and that the GM should go out of his way to help maintain that image.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7695044, member: 4937"] Howdy. Thanks for stopping by. I think you are right about how most people use the word. What I want you to notice is that "a major screw-up" and "something that doesn't just maintain the status quo, but directly increases the challenge for the players" are largely synonymous definitions. When you screw up, it's because you make things worse for yourself. I'm not sure it matters why that happens, per se, as for example we don't as an audience tend to distinguish Inspector Clouseau's extreme ineptness from the perverse manner the universe also seems to be out to get him and object's uncannily break whenever he touches them. It's all fodder for the comedy. More on that latter. But I don't think the major source of disagreement is over what you think it is. I fully understand that Monte is saying both that a 1 is a fumble by definition #1 and that the complication doesn't have to be a the result of character incompetence. The source of the disagreement is somewhat different. First, I deny that it's necessarily or even regularly better for the game that a complication resulting from a player proposition isn't fumbled as the result of character incompetence. I deny that because I feel that disassociated mechanics are in general less satisfying and more problematic for the player than associated mechanics. If I'm shooting an arrow at an orc, it's certainly possible that the worst case scenario is just as I let fly a hitherto unseen hurtling red dragon swoops out of the clouds between me and the orc and blocks my shot, and takes a certain umbrage at me shooting at him. And yes, you might say, "Well that wasn't character incompetence. These sort of things just happen; could have happened to anyone." But then you are creating a world where the player and the character feel less in control of what happens than one where his own screw ups are in the range of possibility. It's not like you are making the throw of the 1 less common by imagining disassociated random happenings happening. The character still misses the shot just as often, and even when these things don't seem like they are the character's fault exactly, they still will seem like the sort of things that a more competent hero could have avoided. I'd rather my character occasionally shoot himself in the foot than live in a bizarro world that twisted just because I threw a 1 when I tried something. Nothing is meaner to a player than removing any sense that his actions have predictable logical consequences, which you eventually start throwing out the window if failures have to be blamed on something other than the player's relative ineptitude. We went from being not quite competent enough to attempt something heroic, to cause not implying effect. Welcome to Kragworld. And secondly, while you can disassociate the fiction from the proposition, I don't think you can disassociate the proposition from the game. Everyone at the table still knows that red dragon swooped down just at that moment because your character threw a 1. If we really should be worried about other players or the GM being 'mean' to us because our character fumbled, the surely we shouldn't be playing in a system where a 1 meant complications arose on failure. Honestly, I think Monte's advice is only necessary because the only mitigation mechanic that makes such fumbles less rare involves an annoyance tax. I have no idea what is fun for other people. But I'll take putting the droid's head on backwards, ending the conversation by blasting the microphone, stepping on the stick and getting backhanded, sticking my prong in the power socket, hotwiring the door and closing a second blast door, getting the hydrospanners dropped on my head while I'm trying to fix the hyperdrive I failed to fix right before the battle, and all the other goofy things that heroes do while they are saving the galaxy over a GM being empowered to introduce whatever out of fiction thing he can conjure out of the air to up the stakes. All that unpredictability is the not-fun part. Disassociated mechanics are stronger anti-player antagonism than major screw ups are, and do nothing to protect my wee little feelings from the stinging barbs of my fellow players when throwing the 1 causes whatever the heck its going to cause makes them laugh their heads off if in fact I'm going to get my ego bruised by something like that. And as far as the notion of coddling goes, it wasn't the idea that the GM was making the players work less hard to succeed that struck me as coddling. What struck me as coddling was the notion that the player should have this image of their own character as the type that never screws up regardless of the circumstances, and that the GM should go out of his way to help maintain that image. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
Top