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?

 

[Maxperson]

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

Funny. I recall Bruce Lee being on his ass all the time. He got knocked on it more than any PC I've ever played. I guess he was incompetent.

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 have unreasonable expectations. When you are looking at a 95% success rate as incompetent, something is very, very wrong.

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.

False Equivalence. Math is not the same as fighting, and doctors misdiagnose things all the time.

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?

No a fumble is not more than a fail. A fumble is only ever just an increased degree of failure. It can't be more than failure.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Maybe, Hussar, you should just not use fumble systems? Are you sure you're doing yourself or anyone else any good by trying to get folks to justify a system that you seem pretty dead set against?

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, earlier, the argument was against a player's die roll changing the setting. A setting change based on a fumble roll is a bad thing right? So, how does the cliff side crumble due to your fumble roll? How is that different, other than in scale?

Maybe, Hussar, you should just not use fumble systems? Are you sure you're doing yourself or anyone else any good by trying to get folks to justify a system that you seem pretty dead set against?

Just trying to figure out where the line gets drawn. It's not good for a fumble system to highlight incompetence, so, dropping your sword, falling on your ass is bad, it's not good for a fumble system to change the setting, so, additional enemies arriving, weather changing, etc is off the table.

So, what's left? We're not supposed to use fumbles to change the setting, nor should effects highlight incompetence, so, what's left for fumbles to do?

 

[Maxperson]

Just trying to figure out where the line gets drawn. It's not good for a fumble system to highlight incompetence, so, dropping your sword, falling on your ass is bad, it's not good for a fumble system to change the setting, so, additional enemies arriving, weather changing, etc is off the table.

Your major problem is that things such as falling or dropping your weapon does not equate to incompetence. Until you realize that bad things happen to competent people, you're going to continue have this issue.

 

[Hussar]

Your major problem is that things such as falling or dropping your weapon does not equate to incompetence. Until you realize that bad things happen to competent people, you're going to continue have this issue.

If my character is falling or dropping his weapon or various other bad effects are happening every four or five rounds, how does this not equate to incompetence? A decent level fighter gets 3 or 4 attacks per round. That means that a fumble, note I'm talking about D&D here, will occur about 1 round in 5 or so. That means that I'm dropping a weapon, falling, or various other things, nearly every encounter.

Nothing says competence like falling on my ass every encounter. :/

 

[Imaro]

But, earlier, the argument was against a player's die roll changing the setting. A setting change based on a fumble roll is a bad thing right? So, how does the cliff side crumble due to your fumble roll? How is that different, other than in scale?

What point are you even addressing or proving now? Just like with the example of mud, I would assume the cliff face has been described as crumbling and pockmarked or something beforehand. since we are not discussing a specific situation I thought the examples were pretty straightforward in being general examples of the environment as opposed to the hero being at fault... but perhaps the examples weren't clear enough... hopefully they are now.

 

[Queer Venger]

Um, obviously 'someone' rolled a 1 when using Narsil

Ha ha! But not Aragorn ;-)

 

[Maxperson]

If my character is falling or dropping his weapon or various other bad effects are happening every four or five rounds, how does this not equate to incompetence? A decent level fighter gets 3 or 4 attacks per round. That means that a fumble, note I'm talking about D&D here, will occur about 1 round in 5 or so. That means that I'm dropping a weapon, falling, or various other things, nearly every encounter.

Nothing says competence like falling on my ass every encounter. :/

Fog of war. Bad stuff happens pretty much every fight. It's the competent person who can overcome it and succeed anyway. Also, the same bad stuff doesn't happen each time, so it's not as if you're playing one of the three stooges. That's your misconception of what fumbles are and represent.

Once again, Bruce Lee ended up on his ass almost every fight, often more than once. He was highly competent.

 

[Hussar]

Fog of war. Bad stuff happens pretty much every fight. It's the competent person who can overcome it and succeed anyway. Also, the same bad stuff doesn't happen each time, so it's not as if you're playing one of the three stooges. That's your misconception of what fumbles are and represent.

Once again, Bruce Lee ended up on his ass almost every fight, often more than once. He was highly competent.

There's a significant difference between someone punching/kicking Bruce Lee and knocking him over and Bruce Lee slipping on a patch of mud or tripping on a chair. The first you see all the time and aren't the result of fumbles. The second is Three Stooges.

Note, there has to be a difference between simply failing and fumbles.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a significant difference between someone punching/kicking Bruce Lee and knocking him over and Bruce Lee slipping on a patch of mud or tripping on a chair. The first you see all the time and aren't the result of fumbles. The second is Three Stooges.

Says who?

Player: I rolled a 1! Fumble!
DM: As a result of being hit by the enemy, this time you get knocked on your ass. Your highly competent PC falls over.

You're the one making yourself out to be incompetent. Not any fumble result.