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?

 

[Imaro]

In every single one of those situations except the unknown flaw in the weapon you have added a condition that the good swordsman is better able to overcome than a bad swordsman would be - and even that situation is dubious because one of the skills with weapons is taking care of them so they serve you better.

And because all those situations will affect a mediocre swordsman more than a good one you've quite literally had to re-write the world to balance out the effectiveness of the PCs, making character skill pointless. And even then have arguably failed.

Yes but the mediocre or bad swordsman in those same positions will be dead... that's why they don't fumble as much... they get killed and probably pretty quickly... in other words they suffer the worst fumble ever, death.

EDIT: And knowing how to properly maintain something doesn't equate to having deep knowledge about how it was created... I know how to properly maintain my car... but that doesn't make me a mechanic.

2nd edit: More experienced fighters tend to learn and try more complicated and riskier moves... which in turn means a greater chance to screw the pooch. However it's their experience that (sometimes) allows them to recover from it and keep going in the fight.

As I said right at the start of the thread, I use the 1= possible reroll option tweaked from 4e Dark Sun. You can choose to play it safe and not take the reroll - or you can take the risk by rerollinkg, knowing you fumble if you fail to hit on the reroll. It's much more interactive, much more evocative, and it's more fun on both sides of the table.

more evocative, interactive and fun for you and your table maybe... which is fine but please don't assume you know what is all those things for everyone else who plays roleplaying games.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't agree with Saelorn about the importance of correlating ingame, imagined causality with the real-world, at-the-table causality of rolling dice and applying mechanics to those rolls.

But I do agree that, whether the intrusion leads to narration of a flaw or narration of a guard, there is an absence of such correlation.

And if we say that the character's attack still mattered somewhat, because that is what caused the flawed weapon to break, well likewise the character's attack still mattered in the guard scenario also, because the guard has come to see what all the noise of combat is about.

I guess my question would be, would there be any way to detect that flaw in the sword beforehand? IOW, did the flaw actually exist in the game world before that fumble was rolled?

I already raised this same point upthread, when I asked in post 341 upthread whether it is an obstacle to the GM using the weapon-breakage "intrusion" if the PCs have very high repair skills, spend a lot of time emphasising how well they are maintaining their equipment, etc?

I didn't get an answer.

 

[Imaro]

I don't agree with Saelorn about the importance of correlating ingame, imagined causality with the real-world, at-the-table causality of rolling dice and applying mechanics to those rolls.

But I do agree that, whether the intrusion leads to narration of a flaw or narration of a guard, there is an absence of such correlation.

And if we say that the character's attack still mattered somewhat, because that is what caused the flawed weapon to break, well likewise the character's attack still mattered in the guard scenario also, because the guard has come to see what all the noise of combat is about.

So the guard has a chance to notice the PC's... but the PC's have absolutely zero chance to hear or notice the guard... why?

EDIT: Remember you've now added certain assumptions to the scenario which were not part of it before... the guard is in hearing range and close enough to reach the PC's. At that point the PC's should have had a chance of noticing or hearing him as well. So this now becomes a failure on the part of the PC's in not detecting the guard...

I already raised this same point upthread, when I asked in post 341 upthread whether it is an obstacle to the GM using the weapon-breakage "intrusion" if the PCs have very high repair skills, spend a lot of time emphasising how well they are maintaining their equipment, etc?

I didn't get an answer.

I thought I addressed your question, my bad... but here's my answer in a reply to Balesir

Furthermore I addressed @pemerton's question about a character who trains and builds up his knowledge of equipment (introduced as a counterpoint to the character's who have exceptionally high perception scores). by pointing out the fact that (as unlikely as it is he could understand all the myriad forms of tech in the Ninth World, and the fact that I'm not sure it's possible to build such a character by the rules) he still may not understand the device...through no fault of his own but through the genre/world conceits of playing in the Ninth World. There is no genre conceit that beings will appear from around corners and buildings and above you without any chance to detect them...if there is please cite the pages where they talk about this aspect of the Ninth World...

Now my question is why does this matter? My purpose was to show that there are cases of Intrusions that meet your criteria... technically I would assume PC's have a way to minimize or eliminate all forms of fumbles if given unlimited resources, and unrestrained abilities... theoretically (it's the Batman fallacy). But the fact of the matter is that for some percentage of X PC's (even if they have repair skills and the GM totally throws out the conceits of the Ninth World in making all technology, understandable, common and relatable with the correct application of said skills.) will not have the skills or will lack them in certain areas thus making this type of fumble valid and meeting all 3 of your criteria.

I have also, in case you didn't notice it brought up another type of fumble/Intrusion that seems to meet all of your criteria and that is one based around the opponent as opposed to the character... which I talked about in a previous post.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Oh. Are you one of those people who think that D&D combats involve figures that just stand there static and don't do anything out of turn at all? Because that's not how combat works. In a combat, the participants are always moving, turning, dodging, parrying, thrusting, and so on, no matter whose turn it is. When you have 3 or more figures in close proximity all moving, dodging, etc., it's pretty easy to imagine a few of them moving in an unexpected manner and someone accidentally hitting an ally.

I think that the mechanics for resolving a combat are accurate enough to represent the situation that's going on, or else there would be no point to any of it. There's plenty of extraneous movement that doesn't get narrated, sure, but I still don't expect to hit an ally when I aim my sword or bow at an enemy. If there was a significant chance of hitting a wrong target, then there would be a rule for that somewhere. Since there isn't, then every fighter in the world knows that such an event is unlikely (probably as a result of the 5-foot-square approximation), or at least not significantly more likely than breaking your weapon - which is another event that everyone knows could happen, but which is so incredibly rare that it doesn't bear mention within the rules.

 

[Balesir]

I said this earlier and I'll say it again... you're loosing me here... what exactly is this discussion we are having about? Let me review for you...

I stated that a conceit of the Ninth World (Numenera) was that technology, weapons, vehicles, cyphers, artifacts, etc. were constructed of poorly understood materials, knowledge, etc. from various past epochs, dimensions, alien races, etc. and rejiggered for the purposes they were now being used on the planet. Thus an unknown flaw, malfunction, short, jam, etc in equipment at anytime is something the player buy into when agreeing to play Numenera...

Thanks for the condescending cheap shot, but that is the discussion between you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and nothing to do with what I was responding to.

pemerton asked if creatures always holding forces back could be accepted as a "fact" about the world if a GM played all creatures as tacticians who held their forces back and I stated that IMO it was to vague & broad (there are specific Numenera creatures who just wouldn't do this whether due to lack of intelligence, contrary instincts or being loners) and that even if the DM plays in this manner there is no in-world justification, as there is for equipment.

This is tangentially related to what Iwas responding to, because the representation of what was originally asked and your response was not quite like this. What I was responding to was these comments about the possibility of "unexpected reinforcements":

You haven't by default accepted the conceit that random, totally undetectable creatures (assuming they don't have some weird power to justify this) can appear out of thin air...

what would be the in-game reason for the fact that enemies hold back their forces and perfectly hide them?

A world of extraordinarily hidden creatures is not a premise of Numenera... one uses the Perception skill to determine whether one does or does not detect creatures... thus if you don't detect a creature it is an internal intrusion (auto fail on perception).

I never said this type of intrusion couldn't be justified... it's basically an auto-failure on perception, which of course is internal to the character (something we were trying to avoid) or it's not causally related to the action taking place...

My "point" is that all of this is a great big strawman, because the appearance of additional foes during a fight does not necessarily imply or require "totally undetectable creatures" that "can appear out of thin air", forces that are "perfectly hidden" or an "auto fail on perception".

Sure, unexpected reinforcements should not be used too often - but that applies to all types of intrusions, I would think. But creatures - even hostile ones - hoving into view is a perfectly natural part of real life, many types of fiction and several roleplaying games (apart from yours, apparently).

So with that recap out the way... what exactly is your point? Are you claiming it's not too broad or vague for all of the creatures in the Ninth World to behave in such a manner? Are you claiming there is an in-world justification for it? If not what exactly are you even talking about?

No, I'm reacting to what I read you saying. I'm not even trying to follow your overarching "point", since it seems to mutate according to what arguments are made against you. You adhere well to the dictum "attack is the best means of defence", but your "defence" appears to be just ignoring any points that counter your thrusts. To be honest, I expect the same again.

 

[Imaro]

Thanks for the condescending cheap shot, but that is the discussion between you and @pemerton and nothing to do with what I was responding to.

So reviewing the conversation that you jumped into the middle of and responded too is condescending. I can't even...

This is tangentially related to what I was responding to, because the representation of what was originally asked and your response was not quite like this. What I was responding to was these comments about the possibility of "unexpected reinforcements":

Context is everything... thus the recap... you jumped in the middle of a conversation between me and @pemerton and apparently didn't understand the context of the discussion going on... and now instead of admitting that, you've created a separate conversation around posts taken out of their original context... the point of which only you seem to have known (I guess I should have read your mind and realized it was a separate tangent).

My "point" is that all of this is a great big strawman, because the appearance of additional foes during a fight does not necessarily imply or require "totally undetectable creatures" that "can appear out of thin air", forces that are "perfectly hidden" or an "auto fail on perception".

It does if you take away the ability for said creature to be detected... but somehow the creature in turn detected and surprised the PC's. We (I and @pemerton were talking about a specific situation/circumstance (Ninth World) in a specific system (Cypher)) you on the other hand are discussing the "I just make up anything situation" and the "no one knows what system"... so yeah I'm sure you can create some specific circumstance where the creatures were perfectly hidden... the PC's shouldn't have even gotten a chance to notice them... and yet they have suddenly appeared within a close enough range of the PC's to complicate whatever they are doing. If that's your goal you win, I guess... but that wasn't what we were discussing.

Sure, unexpected reinforcements should not be used too often - but that applies to all types of intrusions, I would think. But creatures - even hostile ones - hoving into view is a perfectly natural part of real life, many types of fiction and several roleplaying games (apart from yours, apparently).

Again... you missed the point. there was a comparison going on between two different types of Intrusions or "fumbles" but yeah you keep on arguing... or you could actually go back, catch up and understand the discussion you've jumped into.

EDIT: I also stated earlier in the thread that I use causal and non-causal Intrusions in my game... so yes I have used this Intrusion before but I recognize it as the bad thing being that the PC's failed to notice these extra enemies... thus an auto-failure on Perception. This was one of the points, IMO, that violates the 3 criteria that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] set out for the particular type of fumble we were discussing.

No, I'm reacting to what I read you saying. I'm not even trying to follow your overarching "point", since it seems to mutate according to what arguments are made against you. You adhere well to the dictum "attack is the best means of defence", but your "defence" appears to be just ignoring any points that counter your thrusts. To be honest, I expect the same again.

So you're not following my overarching point... yet you somehow believe you know that it mutates... That makes perfect sense... wait no it doesn't, not at all.

I haven't "attacked" anyone, I've been explaining why I believe certain things about the article... you're the one who came in all full of snark, uninformed about the current discussion and are now having what amounts to a forum temper tantrum because your point is incoherent and I called you on it.

If you're not addressing my overarching point... then expect me to ignore your "counters" since by your own admission they aren't countering or addressing my point. You're arguing something else, the crux of which I still don't seem to understand. Is it that having enemies appear from nowhere on an Intrusion is... what exactly?

Not a failure of the character? Because it most certainly is... they didn't perceive them in time.
A conceit of the Ninth World? Because it's not mentioned in my rule book.
Believable? No one said it wasn't.

So tell me because I asked earlier and all you've done is everything but clearly state what it is you are arguing for... What is the point you are trying to make?

 

[Maxperson]

I think that the mechanics for resolving a combat are accurate enough to represent the situation that's going on, or else there would be no point to any of it. There's plenty of extraneous movement that doesn't get narrated, sure, but I still don't expect to hit an ally when I aim my sword or bow at an enemy. If there was a significant chance of hitting a wrong target, then there would be a rule for that somewhere. Since there isn't, then every fighter in the world knows that such an event is unlikely (probably as a result of the 5-foot-square approximation), or at least not significantly more likely than breaking your weapon - which is another event that everyone knows could happen, but which is so incredibly rare that it doesn't bear mention within the rules.

There are rules for hitting an ally and breaking weapons. They're called fumble rules. Not all tables play with them.

 

[Balesir]

To be honest, I expect the same again.

And whaddaya know - I was right!

 

[Imaro]

And whaddaya know - I was right!

So tell me because I asked earlier and all you've done is everything but clearly state what it is you are arguing for... What is the point you are trying to make? Or is this question so hard to answer because ultimately you don't even know what it is?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are rules for hitting an ally and breaking weapons. They're called fumble rules. Not all tables play with them.

As long as they're in the rulebook, and I've seen the rulebook, and know which rules we are using and which ones we are not, and my character knows that those are both possibilities for choosing to make an attack, then I have no room to complain about either result.

But if the fumble table includes an entry for adding a wandering monster to the fight, then I'm probably not going to play that game, since the outcome does not logically follow from the action which caused it. (And that's important to me.)

 

[Aldarc]

I think you're supporting my assertion here... The suggested GM Intrusions given for the monsters are much more varied than "held back forces to attack later"... now unless we're going to make that (holds back forces in reserve) an intrinsic nature of every creature in the Ninth World... and thus changing the canon nature of numerous creatures as they are written in the book... I'm not sure how this can be a conceit of the Ninth World... and that's with it still lacking an in-world justification.

Now in bringing the suggested Intrusions for opponents to my attention I think (and because of the Cypher system's rule that only players roll dice) you've helped me establish another category of GM Intrusions (on a rolled 1 ) that satisfy @pemerton's 3 criteria

I don't think that this is an either/or scenario in regards to the debate. Middle ground does exist. It would not be appropriate for every creature to have more show up for reinforcements. It is appropriate for some, but not all. And to say that some do does not mean that they come "out of thin air."

For example, here is the GM Intrusion recommended for Margr (basically goat-headed orcs): "GM Intrusion: There are more margr! 1d6 reinforcements arrive." But there's another GM Intrusion from the preceding creature entry that would also be potentially appropriate: "GM Intrusion: The laak is tougher and more tenacious than others of its kind. It has 4 extra health and inflicts 1 additional point of damage." I.e., you don't make more troops come out of nowhere, but you up the difficulty of the preexisting NPCs on the table. This is to say, much to the surprise of the GM and the players, the NPCs were tougher than originally imagined. The appropriateness of such a GM Intrusion, however, is connected to the setting and narrative, which is consistent what others have been saying as well.

I think that almost any (there are a few I've seen that circle back to a failure on the character's part... like the failure to notice more of them) GM Intrusion based around an opponent (after the player rolled a 1) will meet all of these criteria... do you agree?

I tentatively agree that many GM Intrusions are based around the opponents. I think that is often since the GM has no real control over the NPCs in the manner that players have over their PCs, unlike in other systems. So the GM Intrusion allows the NPCs to "crit" or do extraordinary things themselves.

EDIT: Some examples of of the GM Intrusions I am talking about...

These are all...
1. events outside normal failure.
2. not due to any major screw up by the character
3. are or can be easily made causally related to the actions taken by the PC.

I can see the case for that.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think that this is an either/or scenario in regards to the debate. Middle ground does exist. It would not be appropriate for every creature to have more show up for reinforcements. It is appropriate for some, but not all. And to say that some do does not mean that they come "out of thin air."

For example, here is the GM Intrusion recommended for Margr (basically goat-headed orcs): "GM Intrusion: There are more margr! 1d6 reinforcements arrive." But there's another GM Intrusion from the preceding creature entry that would also be potentially appropriate: "GM Intrusion: The laak is tougher and more tenacious than others of its kind. It has 4 extra health and inflicts 1 additional point of damage." I.e., you don't make more troops come out of nowhere, but you up the difficulty of the preexisting NPCs on the table. This is to say, much to the surprise of the GM and the players, the NPCs were tougher than originally imagined. The appropriateness of such a GM Intrusion, however, is connected to the setting and narrative, which is consistent what others have been saying as well.

It's an either or debate only because we are comparing it to the same type of intrusion as a technological malfunction in Numenera. My contention is that Numenera and the Ninth World make this type of GM Intrusion widely applicable and causal because there is a baked in reason in the setting while there is no baked in setting reason for creatures always being hidden and/or in reserve or creatures that get tougher. Yes this might be applicable to individual creatures (or groups of creatures) but is is not in and of itself a conceit of the Ninth World as a whole.

I have never made the claim that this type of Intrusion isn't or shouldn't be in Numenera or the Ninth world... only that it does not meet [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]s 3 criteria and that it is not the same (neither broadly applicable nor justified through the conceits of the world as the tech malfunction/flaw intrusion would be). That's it, that's my assertion and I think you agree with it.

As to why I keep saying "out of thin air"... well because it's the truth. When using a GM intrusion to manifest these extra creatures the GM is pulling them out of thin air. They were not established before and there was no chance the PC's could detect them... what else is that but the GM pulling them out of thin air? I'm not even sure why it's a contentious assertion for me to make since the GM Intrusion specifically grants you the right to do this but let's not pretend it's.... causal in any way or not a failure on the part of the PC's to notice something... because it's both.

I tentatively agree that many GM Intrusions are based around the opponents. I think that is often since the GM has no real control over the NPCs in the manner that players have over their PCs, unlike in other systems. So the GM Intrusion allows the NPCs to "crit" or do extraordinary things themselves.

I can see the case for that.

I disagree with part of this statement... the GM has just as much control over the NPC's as a player has over his character in Numenera, the only difference is who rolls the dice. However I do agree with the last part... the GM's chance to do extraordinary things with his NPC's relies instead on the player rolling a 1 as opposed to him rolling it himself.

Now again it seems the point of this discussion is being lost, I was asked to provide Intrusions that meet pemerton's criteria and I believe many of these (though not all) do because...

1. All are different from regular failures on the part of the character
2. Many/most are not a result of the character being incompetent in an area
3. They are causal from the behavior/characteristics/etc. of the creature

Do you agree with this?

 

[Aldarc]

It's an either or debate only because we are comparing it to the same type of intrusion as a technological malfunction in Numenera. My contention is that Numenera and the Ninth World make this type of GM Intrusion widely applicable and causal because there is a baked in reason in the setting while there is no baked in setting reason for creatures always being hidden and/or in reserve or creatures that get tougher. Yes this might be applicable to individual creatures (or groups of creatures) but is is not in and of itself a conceit of the Ninth World as a whole.

I have never made the claim that this type of Intrusion isn't or shouldn't be in Numenera or the Ninth world... only that it does not meet [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]s 3 criteria and that it is not the same (neither broadly applicable nor justified through the conceits of the world as the tech malfunction/flaw intrusion would be). That's it, that's my assertion and I think you agree with it.

This still seems like an incredibly muddled (and unproductive) conversation, to be honest.

As to why I keep saying "out of thin air"... well because it's the truth. When using a GM intrusion to manifest these extra creatures the GM is pulling them out of thin air. They were not established before and there was no chance the PC's could detect them... what else is that but the GM pulling them out of thin air? I'm not even sure why it's a contentious assertion for me to make since the GM Intrusion specifically grants you the right to do this but let's not pretend it's.... causal in any way or not a failure on the part of the PC's to notice something... because it's both.

Then I will disagree with you on the same grounds on which I disagreed with Celebrim on that point, as I do not believe they are "out of thin air." Certainly no more than the original NPCs were "out of thin air" before the reinforcements.

I disagree with part of this statement... the GM has just as much control over the NPC's as a player has over his character in Numenera, the only difference is who rolls the dice. However I do agree with the last part... the GM's chance to do extraordinary things with his NPC's relies instead on the player rolling a 1 as opposed to him rolling it himself.

Ummm...that's my point. (Except if the GM decides to interject an Intrusion of their own volition.)

Now again it seems the point of this discussion is being lost, I was asked to provide Intrusions that meet pemerton's criteria and I believe many of these (though not all) do because...

1. All are different from regular failures on the part of the character
2. Many/most are not a result of the character being incompetent in an area
3. They are causal from the behavior/characteristics/etc. of the creature

Do you agree with this?

Seems legitimate.

 

[Imaro]

This still seems like an incredibly muddled (and unproductive) conversation, to be honest.

Eh, I can see that... especially when the conversation degenerated into a debate over of my choice of using the term "out of thin air"... which really was incidental to my overall point. Either way I think there are enough GM Intrusions that...

1. Are different from regular failure
2. Do not arise from character incompetency
3. Are causal

That the GM is not unduly constrained by the lack of such intrusions being readily available and I continue to disagree with the idea that the lack of these intrusions was the driving factor behind Monte's preference in the aricle for GM Intrusions that are not based on character incompetence...

Then I will disagree with you on the same grounds on which I disagreed with Celebrim on that point, as I do not believe they are "out of thin air." Certainly no more than the original NPCs were "out of thin air" before the reinforcements.

I'm not sure where you disagrees with Celebrim at so it's hard for me to understand the basis of your argument. Were these reinforcements established in the fiction beforehand? Did the PC's have a chance to detect them before they appeared? I guess I'm asking... if they weren't created out of thin air at the moment of the Intrusion... where did they come from? Why didn't my character notice them (or at least have a chance too?). Ultimately though this wasn't a major point to me... my point was in debunking that MOnte prefers external GM Intrusions because there aren't enough that satisfy the 3 criteria pemerton put forward that are causal. This is at best a minor tangent and at worse a distraction from the original discussion. I also don't see how this is anymore productive than the original argument since all it is is perspective. I see them as being pulled out of thin air (which as I said before is perfectly legitimate per the rules for GM Intrusons.), and you don't.

Ummm...that's my point. (Except if the GM decides to interject an Intrusion of their own volition.)

Seems legitimate.

My disagreement was with your statement that they don't have control over NPC's like players have over PC's. When I've GM'd I've controlled my NPC's just as the players have controlled their characters. For me the difference is in how I as DM interact with the mechanics, not in control over said NPC's. They roll, I don't. If that's what you are saying then yes, I agree.