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?

 

[Hussar]

But I wasn't hit by the enemy. I fumbled on my turn. Not on his attack. Is it some sort of Schroedinger attack that hits me for damage and then later it knocks me down but only if I fumble? How does that work in play?

I could see this in a system with defence rolls, but how would this work in DND?

 

[pemerton]

Can we pull back a bit from the to-ing and fro-ing and look at the overarching question? (At least as I see it.)

Is there a meaningful variety of ingame events that can occur on a roll of nat 1, and:

(1) are big events, distinct from ordinary failure;

(2) are not major screw-ups or incompetence by the character whose player rolled the 1;

(3) are able to be imagined, in the fiction, as causally downstream of the failed character action.​

I think that Monte Cook believes the answer to the question is No, and that's why (in his blog, and as elaborated in this thread by Charles Ryan) he embraces (1) and (2) but rejects (3). [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems to agree with Monte in post 323 above.

Does anyone think Monte Cook is wrong? Can you give examples of events that satisfy (1), (2) and (3)?

 

[Imaro]

Can we pull back a bit from the to-ing and fro-ing and look at the overarching question? (At least as I see it.)

Is there a meaningful variety of ingame events that can occur on a roll of nat 1, and:

(1) are big events, distinct from ordinary failure;

(2) are not major screw-ups or incompetence by the character whose player rolled the 1;

(3) are able to be imagined, in the fiction, as causally downstream of the failed character action.​

I think that Monte Cook believes the answer to the question is No, and that's why (in his blog, and as elaborated in this thread by Charles Ryan) he embraces (1) and (2) but rejects (3). @Hussar seems to agree with Monte in post 323 above.

Does anyone think Monte Cook is wrong? Can you give examples of events that satisfy (1), (2) and (3)?

I think your assumptions are wrong... especially #3 being the reason why Monte doesn't want a natural 1 to always be a character incompetence fumble... from the article...

Bruce—the player, not the character, remember—didn’t do anything wrong. Rolling a 1 isn’t his fault, per se. The die just does that on its own. About 1 in 20 times, actually. But if the GM actually incorporates some version of the joke into the actual narrative of the game—that is to say, that Bruce’s character said something foolish or untoward—Bruce feels bad.
Which wouldn’t be the end of the world if it only happened once. Or rarely. But a lot of dice get rolled in a session. A lot of 1s come up. A person can have a great idea or plan for their action, and have it result in a roll of a 1. That’s why the Cypher System rules don’t say that a 1 is a fumble. It’s the trigger of a GM intrusion. An intrusion is a complication, but it’s not necessarily a complication arising from someone doing anything wrong.

It [an GM Intrusion on a 1] 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.

This is important because 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.

From my reading of the article... nowhere does Monte claim or even infer that there aren't enough results to meet your 1 & 2 criteria... he's arguing from the position that in framing the fumble/intrusion around character incompetence too often... it may make players feel bad or the game less fun. So I guess the reason I'm not discussing your position is because it doesn't accurately reflect what I think the views of Monte or Charles are... IMO, maybe you should rethink the conclusion you've drawn from the article...

EDIT: In fact I'd argue against your #1 & #2 based on some of the examples he gives cited above in the quote from the article (slipping and falling, dropping a weapon, shooting a friend)... While I agree with your assertion that they should be distinct from regular events... how big or how small they are (as long as they complicate things) is totally GM reliant and the Numenera rules support this view. And he outright states these types of intrusions are fine as long as they are not so frequent as to cause the players and/or GM to have less fun while playing. Of course this threshold is going to be different for each group.

EDIT2: I actually think when viewed from my perspective the message isn't all that controversial... find the threshold for character incompetence fumbles your group has fun introducing, and make up the rest with bad things that aren't based around character incompetence... the Cypher system gives you the tools to do that. If anything I think Monte was reaching out to people who may not have considered natural 1 rolled bad things that don't stem from character incompetence and bringing the possibility of such to their attention.

 

[Imaro]

But I wasn't hit by the enemy. I fumbled on my turn. Not on his attack. Is it some sort of Schroedinger attack that hits me for damage and then later it knocks me down but only if I fumble? How does that work in play?

I could see this in a system with defence rolls, but how would this work in DND?

Maybe you should have specified the system when asking the question since we have been citing a multitude of systems throughout this discussion and fumbles are system dependent... but again I have to ask, what is your point around fumbles with this tangent discussion that admittedly seems to be going in circles (We've hit the whole "depends on the system" point much earlier in this thread and now here we are again)?

 

[Maxperson]

But I wasn't hit by the enemy. I fumbled on my turn. Not on his attack. Is it some sort of Schroedinger attack that hits me for damage and then later it knocks me down but only if I fumble? How does that work in play?

I could see this in a system with defence rolls, but how would this work in DND?

It's all in description. Combat is not one side just stands there drooling while the other side moves. It's a fluid thing where both sides are moving and swinging at each other simultaneously. The NPC can "hit" as in contact the PC on the PC's turn, causing the PC to fall on his rear.

 

[pemerton]

From my reading of the article... nowhere does Monte claim or even infer that there aren't enough results to meet your 1 & 2 criteria... he's arguing from the position that in framing the fumble/intrusion around character incompetence too often... it may make players feel bad or the game less fun.

Right. Those are his reasons for affirming my (2) - that is, for wanting nat 1s to not be (primarily, or typically) major screw-ups by the failing character.

Hence the question I asked - are there events that satisfy (1), (2) and (3). I don't think Monte thinks there are - which is why he argues for "external" intrusions like reinforcements.

 

[Imaro]

Right. Those are his reasons for affirming my (2) - that is, for wanting nat 1s to not be (primarily, or typically) major screw-ups by the failing character.

1. I think confusion is arising because you are either purposefully or accidentally mis-stating his stance depending on what particular post we look at. Claiming he is totally against something as you do here...

(2) are not major screw-ups or incompetence by the character whose player rolled the 1;

is different from adding the qualifiers that you do above.... In fact Monte doesn't even claim they shouldn't primarily or typically be major screw-ups by character incompetence... unless the player isn't having fun... that's the basis of why he wants to limit them... not because there aren't events that satisfy (1), (2) & (3)... Your other reasons fall down because...

Reason (2) Again... GM Intrusions are not necessarily big events... the only requirement for an intrusion (on a 1) is that it is a "bad thing" and it complicates things for the character... this could be something as simple as a weapon jamming. You've created this criteria but it has no basis in the Cypher rules or in what Monte or Charles have stated.

Reason (3) Not sure why this wouldn't be the case (especially in a game of weird science-fantasy like Numenera, and really is not a point I have seen Monte or Charles make anywhere (my biggest issue with your claim here)... if you believe this fine, but then it's based on assumptions you've made that IMO are faulty at best. the worse being that a GM Intrusion on a 1 must be some big event... which it doesn't have to be... it's only requirement is that it be a bad complication.

Hence the question I asked - are there events that satisfy (1), (2) and (3). I don't think Monte thinks there are - which is why he argues for "external" intrusions like reinforcements.

His argument is based on player enjoyment... it's pretty clear in the article that he is arguing for this because he believes at some point basing "fumbles" entirely on character ineptitude will cause the player to stop having fun... can you post some quotes or excerpts from the article or the Cypher rules that actually back up this assertion you are making... I did in the previous posts I've made...

 

[Balesir]

1. I think confusion is arising because you are either purposefully or accidentally mis-stating his stance depending on what particular post we look at. Claiming he is totally against something as you do here...

I can't tell if you are being wilfully obtuse, here, or trying to pull off some sort of obfuscatory argument technique or something, but it seems really simple, to me:

1) [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying that GM Intrusions on a roll of 1 have to be distinct from simple failed rolls because, well, otherwise they would be just failed rolls. If they weren't different from simple failure, they wouldn't have separate rules.

2) Monte is saying that GM Intrusions on a roll of 1 should not always be examples of PC incompetence. They might very well sometimes be, but he is saying they ought often to not be. Thus, there will be cases (if you follow Monte's advice) where they won't be, and we must account for those cases.

3) You said (not Monte) that GM Intrusions on a roll of 1 should only ever flow causally from what the character is trying to do when the roll is called for as a means of resolution.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point is that he doesn't see (and, incidentally, neither do I) that it is possible to have all three conditions true at once. "Proof" that you can have (1) and (3) without (2) on the grounds that Monte doesn't say you must always have (2) is irrelevant; if you are to have ANY GM Intrusion (i.e. not a simple failure: 1) that follows Monte's advice (of sometimes having an Intrusion not caused by PC incompetence: 2) you are going to have to have it arise from some factor other than the PC's action (i.e.: 3) unless you can find some cases that are different from a normal failure (1), are not the result of character incompetence (2) and flow causally from what the character is rolling for (3). In other words, if you follow Monte's advice, you must have GM Intrusions that are not caused by the character's action - or you must simply not follow Monte's advice (a perfectly admissible course, even if arguably not playing the game as the creator intended you to).

 

[Imaro]

I can't tell if you are being wilfully obtuse, here, or trying to pull off some sort of obfuscatory argument technique or something, but it seems really simple, to me:

How about you give me the benefit of the doubt and I'll give you the same... I'm not understanding how @pemerton arrived at his conclusion and I stated why...

1) @pemerton is saying that GM Intrusions on a roll of 1 have to be distinct from simple failed rolls because, well, otherwise they would be just failed rolls. If they weren't different from simple failure, they wouldn't have separate rules.

I don't disagree with what you are saying here.... however different events and big events are not synonyms... and I assume @pemerton uses the word "bigger" for a reason. No one is disputing a GM Intrusion (on a 1) should be different from a regular failure but I'm not agreeing it has to be some big event... it doesn't and nothing in the article or rulebook supports this. Slipping in mud isn't some big event and an extra monster or two joining the fray isn't some big event... does that clear things up?

2) Monte is saying that GM Intrusions on a roll of 1 should not always be examples of PC incompetence. They might very well sometimes be, but he is saying they ought often to not be. Thus, there will be cases (if you follow Monte's advice) where they won't be, and we must account for those cases.

Agree to a point... Monte is using the qualifier of them not being fun to determine what frequency they should be used with. He's not making a general statement about them in the article without reference to the qualifier that your player(s) doesn't/don't find them fun... this is key because it gives his reasoning for wanting to reduce them... the exact question @pemerton is asking.

3) You said (not Monte) that GM Intrusions on a roll of 1 should only ever flow causally from what the character is trying to do when the roll is called for as a means of resolution

When did I say this?... I've said previously in this thread I use a blend of the two when running the Cypher system. I'm disagreeing with @pemerton's claim of Monte's reasoning for wanting to reduce character ineptness fumbles... <sarcasm>Now whose either being wilfully obtuse, here, or trying to pull off some sort of obfuscatory argument technique or something... </sarcasm>

@pemerton's point is that he doesn't see (and, incidentally, neither do I) that it is possible to have all three conditions true at once. "Proof" that you can have (1) and (3) without (2) on the grounds that Monte doesn't say you must always have (2) is irrelevant; if you are to have ANY GM Intrusion (i.e. not a simple failure: 1) that follows Monte's advice (of sometimes having an Intrusion not caused by PC incompetence: 2) you are going to have to have it arise from some factor other than the PC's action (i.e.: 3) unless you can find some cases that are different from a normal failure (1), are not the result of character incompetence (2) and flow causally from what the character is rolling for (3). In other words, if you follow Monte's advice, you must have GM Intrusions that are not caused by the character's action - or you must simply not follow Monte's advice (a perfectly admissible course, even if arguably not playing the game as the creator intended you to).

And I disagree that this is Monte's position or reasoning for wanting to reduce character ineptness driven fumbles. Now if you and @pemerton believe this to be true, that's ok and I'm willing to discuss whether I believe what you two think has merit but I don't agree with the premise that Cook's reasoning lies along the same line so I'm not going to start a discussion with the assumption that Cook's reasoning lies along the same lines as yours since I don't believe it does....

 

[Imaro]

Is there a meaningful variety of ingame events that can occur on a roll of nat 1, and:

(1) are big events, distinct from ordinary failure;

(2) are not major screw-ups or incompetence by the character whose player rolled the 1;

(3) are able to be imagined, in the fiction, as causally downstream of the failed character action.​

Can you give examples of events that satisfy (1), (2) and (3)?

@pemerton's point is that he doesn't see (and, incidentally, neither do I) that it is possible to have all three conditions true at once. "Proof" that you can have (1) and (3) without (2) on the grounds that Monte doesn't say you must always have (2) is irrelevant; if you are to have ANY GM Intrusion (i.e. not a simple failure: 1) that follows Monte's advice (of sometimes having an Intrusion not caused by PC incompetence: 2) you are going to have to have it arise from some factor other than the PC's action (i.e.: 3) unless you can find some cases that are different from a normal failure (1), are not the result of character incompetence (2) and flow causally from what the character is rolling for (3). In other words, if you follow Monte's advice, you must have GM Intrusions that are not caused by the character's action - or you must simply not follow Monte's advice (a perfectly admissible course, even if arguably not playing the game as the creator intended you to).

@pemerton & @Balesir... The easiest example I can think of to disprove what you are claiming are equipment (armor, weapon, cyphers, vehicles, tools, etc.) failures and malfunctions... especially in Numenera where the technology is supposed to be poorly understood and re-jiggered to purposes it was never originally intended for. Flows causally, has nothing to do with PC incompetence and can have different effects than a normal failure...