Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics

Hussar said:

Good grief. FOUR people before me said EXACLTY the same thing as I did - that there's no reason we need that to be a fumble - the regular rules work perfectly well for that scene - but you choose ME to pick an argument with? Look, when four people tell you the exact same thing, perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to consider that your argument might not be the work of beauty you think it is.

When a scene can be modelled without resorting to extraneous mechanics, why would I add extra mechanics to model the scene? What's the point? The argument was made that fumbles are common in genre fiction. Han brings down the blast door, Han steps on a twig, apparently Luke stumbles and falls, swordsmen kill allied swordsmen all the time. But, when proof is asked for - actual examples from genre fiction, suddenly it's shown that no, there's no need for fumble mechanics and in fact, fumble mechanics would actually make following genre conventions MORE difficult. Because, outside of some very corner case examples, our heroes don't catastrophically fail in genre fiction. Holmes doesn't botch his investigation role meaning that he contaminates the evidence allowing the killing to go free. Luke doesn't slip on some greasy floor and hack off Han's hand. Legolas doesn't skewer Gimli with a botched bow shot. Bond's gun never explodes in his hand.

Click to expand...

No the problem is that since a fumble is a sub-category of failure... by definition a fumble will always entail a failure... until what differentiates a fumble from a regular failure is defined... there's no way to determine whether something is or isn't a regular failure or a fumble...

As for catastrophic failures... Luke gets his hand cut off in a lightsaber duel.. how do you model that?

EDIT: You like a few others here apparently have this notion that a fumble must entail granular physical harm either inflicted on ones self or on ones allies... but the problem is that's your very specific definition of what entails a fumble... and not one all posters are agreeing or acknowledging as truth.

Hussar said:

OTOH, virtually nothing in D&D is ever set up that way. There's a reason you don't have giants in Keep on the Borderlands, despite having an ogre. There's a reason that random encounter tables, outside of the wilderness encounter tables in the AD&D DMG, are almost always designed based on the level of the party, and, in fact, DM's are advised to do so in many editions.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with wilderness encounter tables other than the ones in the AD&D DMG, so I can't comment on those, but the ones cited are meant to impartially represent what you might encounter in an area.

A lot of it comes down to world-building, though. There aren't any giants in the Keep on the Borderlands, because it wouldn't make any sense for one to be there, given the way that the world is organized (unless it's just poorly written, which I can't speak to because I don't play modules). One of the skills of a Game-Master is to create a world that is conducive to adventuring, which means you can't have ancient dragons everywhere because nobody would get past level 3, to say nothing of the ecology of such a world!

Instead, regions tend to be fairly self-balancing. You don't run into level 19 dragons in the middle of a forest filled with level 2 beasts, because there's no reason why those dragons would evolve to be so big and strong if their only challenge to survival was overcoming level 2 beasts. Powerful demons are off on another plane of existence, and summoning one would require a powerful spellcaster, but powerful spellcasters are busy opposing other powerful spellcasters instead of wasting their time with the PCs.

It's not that campaigns should subsist entirely on random encounters, so much as that the characters and creatures which inhabit the world (and which might eventually oppose the PCs) should exist independently of who the PCs are and what they can do. Ancient dragons should exist where it makes sense for them to exist, and not simply in the vicinity of level-appropriate PCs.

Imaro said:

No the problem is that since a fumble is a sub-category of failure... by definition a fumble will always entail a failure... until what differentiates a fumble from a regular failure is defined... there's no way to determine whether something is or isn't a regular failure or a fumble...

As for catastrophic failures... Luke gets his hand cut off in a lightsaber duel.. how do you model that?

Click to expand...

Critical success on Vader's part. Given how often lightsaber's hack off limbs, even of highly skilled practitioners, I'm going to give credit to Vader rather than try to convince myself that Luke bungled his defense.

Imaro said:

EDIT: You like a few others here apparently have this notion that a fumble must entail granular physical harm either inflicted on ones self or on ones allies... but the problem is that's your very specific definition of what entails a fumble... and not one all posters are agreeing or acknowledging as truth.

Click to expand...

This is not really idiosyncratic to Hussar. If you're going to have a distinction between failure and fumble terms, fumble needs to mean something distinct from just failing and that pretty much requires an effect that is even worse than failure. Traditional definitions of fumble suggest clumsiness, bungling, or making a mess of something and that too suggests more than simply not succeeding. So is it really controversial that people assume that a fumble somehow harms the PC or his allies?

Hussar said:

OTOH, virtually nothing in D&D is ever set up that way. There's a reason you don't have giants in Keep on the Borderlands, despite having an ogre. There's a reason that random encounter tables, outside of the wilderness encounter tables in the AD&D DMG, are almost always designed based on the level of the party, and, in fact, DM's are advised to do so in many editions.

Never minding that your "traditional role of the Game-Master" runs counter to the advice given in pretty much every DM's advice book in every edition. Yup, DM's shouldn't be biased when adjudicating an encounter. But, in the set up of that encounter? Bias is not only unavoidable but is desirable. No one, ever, designs an entire campaign from purely random encounters. And, guess what, when you start designing scenarios, it's unavoidable that you will bias the scenario in favour of the PC's.

Otherwise, if encounters were actually "fair", you'd never get past 3rd level because the party would keep dying.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Especially in D&D. It is a level based system, which means that, of course, the GM is taking the party's level under consideration while designing adventures. How could it go any other way? I have never seen or been in a campaign that was created with no "recommended" levels or CRs or anything!

I am surprised to see Monte Cook's article spawning such controversy. His GM intrusions don't seem to warrant such a furor! They are a typical example of mechanics found in more modern games.

Arilyn said:

How could it go any other way? I have never seen or been in a campaign that was created with no "recommended" levels or CRs or anything!

Click to expand...

The recommended level (or CR) could be descriptive rather than proscriptive. It's not that the Necromancer is raising an army of CR 4 undead, and there's a CR 7 dragon involved, because this adventure is recommended for characters of level 5-8; it's that this adventure is recommended for these levels because these are the kinds of NPCs involved. They are who they are regardless of whether the PCs are level 1 or level 20.

Note that these terms are entirely external to the events of the game itself. The Necromancer isn't working with the level-appropriate dragon because it's a game and the whole thing is designed for the party of a certain level; the Necromancer is working with this dragon because lesser dragons couldn't help her and she is beneath the notice of more powerful dragons. Everything that happens in the game world must have an in-game-world cause, and cannot be influenced be outside factors (without violating the GM's duty of impartiality).

That's awfully convenient [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]. And tautological. There's absolutely no reason why that particular dragon and not one that is only somewhat larger say a jump from CR 7 to CR 11 is in this scenario except that a more difficult dragon would be too difficult for this party to overcome.

Heck, even jumping two CRs would make the adventure too difficult possibly. So either the scenario gets changed - perhaps the party meets the dragon in a situation where the party has advantages - or the easier dragon gets used.

Hussar said:

There's absolutely no reason why that particular dragon and not one that is only somewhat larger say a jump from CR 7 to CR 11 is in this scenario except that a more difficult dragon would be too difficult for this party to overcome.

Click to expand...

The GM looks at all of the possible worlds that could potentially exist, and selects one that will make for an interesting adventure. And while there are an infinite number of worlds to choose from, the one thing that they all have in common is that they exist independently of who the PCs are.

It's not hard to avoid meta-gaming, as long as you're aware of it.

Mortellan said:

I agree Dave,
If you allow crits, especially in a system with possible improved crit chances like D&D, I gotta have a counter balance. 3.5/Pathfinder is especially ridiculous. Criticalling on 1/4 of your attacks is easy to accomplish, but a measly 5% chance to goof up? Boo!

No fumbles, then no crits.

Click to expand...

Now show how that high level 3E fighter with 4 attacks per round screws up 4 times as often as Bob the 1st level warrior. Fumble rules just screw over exceptional PCs, glad we never used them.

Saelorn said:

The GM looks at all of the possible worlds that could potentially exist, and selects one that will make for an interesting adventure. And while there are an infinite number of worlds to choose from, the one thing that they all have in common is that they exist independently of who the PCs are.

It's not hard to avoid meta-gaming, as long as you're aware of it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for agreeing with me. IOW, it has zero to do with world building and everything to do with creating adventures for the players who are supposed to succeed in those adventures.

Hussar said:

Thank you for agreeing with me. IOW, it has zero to do with world building and everything to do with creating adventures for the players who are supposed to succeed in those adventures.

Click to expand...

No, I don't agree with you at all. These worlds need to be judged on their inherent potential for adventure. If you base it on the players or their characters, then you are violating impartiality.

If you don't want to be fair, then feel free to ignore the rules, or play some other game that doesn't care about fairness. You can't take a biased starting position and then claim to be fair, though.