Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics

Von Ether · Feb 28, 2016

Imaro said:
Ok...

Wait... so now environmental factors highlight character incompetence?

Is the PC incompetent? aren't feints, parries, etc. just a normal part of combat? The PC didn't look silly or over the top... so why exactly does this highlight incompetence?

I agree with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] ... your threshold for a PC being incompetent seems to be extraordinarily high.

There seems to some discussion between what's infallible vs humanly competent.

Maxperson · Feb 28, 2016

Von Ether said:
There seems to some discussion between what's infallible vs humanly competent.

Not that I've seen. I've seen one person stating that a PC that is not infallible is incompetent, and everyone else refuting that. No real discussion, because there's no reasonable position being taken by the one person.

Balesir · Feb 28, 2016

Imaro said:
Emphasis Mine: This is the first time I've seen you interpret what they are saying correctly...

Also I disagree with your assumption that a nat 1 is not supposed to be a major screw up... it's supposed to be a major screw up. I have cited in the rules where rolling a 1 is called out specifically as something bad happening. Don't confuse "a major screw up" with "a major screw up caused by/highlighting the ineptitude of the characters".

Is this simply some confusion of the meaning of the term "major screw up"?

I - and I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - interpret the term "screw up" to relate directly to the incompetence of the acting individual. You, it seems, do not? If an unfortunate set of circumstances cause something to go wrong - even disastrously wrong - I don't think of myself as having "screwed up"; I just think of myself as unlucky. Maybe it is because I am English, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is ( think) Australian and you are (I think) American that we have differing assumed meanings for the same phrase?

Hussar · Feb 29, 2016

Ok, perhaps I was unclear. Let me try it this way.

How does my character slipping in the mud or falling for a feint highlight my character's competence as a combatant? In what way is that not a result of my failure of competence? Perhaps it's a disagreement over the definition of incompetence?

Imaro · Feb 29, 2016

Hussar said:
Ok, perhaps I was unclear. Let me try it this way.

How does my character slipping in the mud or falling for a feint highlight my character's competence as a combatant? In what way is that not a result of my failure of competence? Perhaps it's a disagreement over the definition of incompetence?

I thought our goal was to avoid highlighting incompetence... if our goal, in a fumble is to not only avoid highlighting incompetence... but to actually highlight competence... then I have to ask... why even have failures... much less fumbles?

Maxperson · Feb 29, 2016

Hussar said:
Ok, perhaps I was unclear. Let me try it this way.

How does my character slipping in the mud or falling for a feint highlight my character's competence as a combatant? In what way is that not a result of my failure of competence? Perhaps it's a disagreement over the definition of incompetence?

Bruce Lee = highly competent. Bruce Lee = someone who has fallen for feints. He has also slipped. Crap happens, even to highly competent people without making them incompetent.

Hussar · Feb 29, 2016

I don't recall Bruce Lee in the movies slipping on a wet floor or patch of blood and landing on his ass.

Failing to do something is not highlighting incompetence. No one is perfect. But when our high level hero is slipping or falling for a feint consistently ie. 1 time in 20 I'd say that's pretty incompetent.

You certainly wouldn't go to a doctor with that fail rate. If my accountant was seriously screwing up 5% of the time I'd be looking for a new one.

Note, a fumble is more than just a fail right? It's fail with additional consequences. Or am I missing something? If my high level fighter is falling down one round in five or six, that's kinda highlighting incompetence isn't it?

pemerton · Feb 29, 2016

Balesir said:
Is this simply some confusion of the meaning of the term "major screw up"?

I - and I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - interpret the term "screw up" to relate directly to the incompetence of the acting individual. You, it seems, do not? If an unfortunate set of circumstances cause something to go wrong - even disastrously wrong - I don't think of myself as having "screwed up"; I just think of myself as unlucky. Maybe it is because I am English, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is ( think) Australian and you are (I think) American that we have differing assumed meanings for the same phrase?

I am Australian, and English is my first language.

I take the phrase major screw-up to refer to a situation where a person has screwed something up. (In Australia we would tend to say "stuff up" rather than "screw up" - in Australian English, "screw" is synonymous with "f***", and "screw-up" is therefore a little bit closer to "f***-up" and hence not quite as polite as "stuff up".)

And here is Charles Ryan using the phrase in the same way:

CharlesRyan said:
I think most people interpret the word "fumble" to mean "a major screw-up." As in, rolling a 1 means your character did something that really screwed the pooch. <snippage> The situation got worse because YOUR CHARACTER did something uncharacteristically incompetent.

If that's how you interpret the word "fumble," Monte (and the Cypher System rules generally) argue that you should broaden your horizon.

In other words, he is using "major screw-up" to mean "doing something that really screws the pooch" which is the same things as "doing something uncharacteristically incompetent that makes the situation worse". He then goes on to say that the point of Monte Cook's blog is to say that such a conception of what a fumble is, you need to broaden your conception of what a "fumble" is. And in his blog, Monte Cook explains what the broadening would consist in:

In a combat situation, a GM intrusion can range from the opposing creature gaining an additional chance to attack for a round, to reinforcements for the opposition showing up. It could mean that the character accidentally shoots a friend, or drops her weapon, or slips and falls, but those should be rare. Far more often, it should be some external circumstance that arises, and not something “wrong” that the character did.

Upthread I offered the following conjecture as to why he said this:

(1) he wants a nat 1 to be a big event, distinct from ordinary failure;

(2) He does not want a nat 1 to (typically) be a major screw-up by the character whose player rolled the 1;

(3) there are not enough infiction possibilities that satisfy(1) and (2) while nevertheless being able to be imagined, in the fiction,causally downstream of the failed character action.

The contentious claim here, obviously, is (3): that Monte believes (1) and (2) is obvious enough from the blog and the subsequent elaboration by Charles Ryan.

So, instead of debating semantics can we debate (3): is it true? (At all, in general, in the Cypher Systerm, in other FRPGs, . . .?)

Imaro · Feb 29, 2016

Balesir said:
Is this simply some confusion of the meaning of the term "major screw up"?

I - and I think @pemerton - interpret the term "screw up" to relate directly to the incompetence of the acting individual. You, it seems, do not? If an unfortunate set of circumstances cause something to go wrong - even disastrously wrong - I don't think of myself as having "screwed up"; I just think of myself as unlucky. Maybe it is because I am English, @pemerton is ( think) Australian and you are (I think) American that we have differing assumed meanings for the same phrase?

I think... maybe so. I figure a "major screw up" (irregardless of the cause) is just you failing to do something and the resulting consequences being (much) greater than just failure. So your weapon breaking, a rock face crumbling, or even a surprise attack you didn't see coming... can all result in a major screw up.

EDIT: In other words, as I understand the meaning of it, someone can majorly screw up due to bad luck... however that's not incompetence on their part.

Imaro · Feb 29, 2016

Hussar said:
I don't recall Bruce Lee in the movies slipping on a wet floor or patch of blood and landing on his ass.

Failing to do something is not highlighting incompetence. No one is perfect. But when our high level hero is slipping or falling for a feint consistently ie. 1 time in 20 I'd say that's pretty incompetent.

You certainly wouldn't go to a doctor with that fail rate. If my accountant was seriously screwing up 5% of the time I'd be looking for a new one.

Note, a fumble is more than just a fail right? It's fail with additional consequences. Or am I missing something? If my high level fighter is falling down one round in five or six, that's kinda highlighting incompetence isn't it?

Annnnd.... we are back to square one... if you're using the exact same fumble result every time a 1 is rolled, then your fumble system sucks.