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?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Well, quite. My claim is that he is going further, though, and pointing out that - once you try and do that - you find that you have to narrate "bad things" that, in the fiction, are not causally downstream of the failing character's action.

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.

Because obviously I've got nothing better to do with my time that post purposeful misstatements of Monte Cook on the interwebs!

How about you give me the benefit of the doubt and I'll give you the same

You haven't really given me the benefit of the doubt - you've accused me of purposefully misstating Monte Cook's stance! But anyway, I'll repeat, again, the key passage from Monte Cook's blog, and will bold a key phrase:

[T]he 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.

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.​

Here we see Monte indicating:

(1) That a nat 1 is not just a fail. It's a trigger for something more than a failure - what, upthread, I called a "big" or distincitve event. Something other than "nothing happens".

(2) That typically, even primarily, such events ought not to be due to major screw-ups by the failing character (not something "wrong" that the character did).

(3') Following on from (2), that far more often these events should be external circumstances such as reinforcements, rather than events that (in-fiction) are causally downstream of the failing character's action.​

And I am asking the question: why (3')? My conjectured answer (not an assumption) is that there are simply not enough events that are possible within the fiction that satisfy (1) and (2), yet nevertheless are causally downstream of the failing character's action.

His argument is based on player enjoyment

This is his reason for affirming (2), yes. But on it own it tells us nothing about (3) or (3'). And that is what I am interested in.

I disagree that this is Monte's position or reasoning for wanting to reduce character ineptness driven fumbles.

I'm not even talking abot his reason for wanting to reduce ineptness-driven fumbles! I'm asking why, given that he wants to do this, is he moved to say that they should be mostly external circumstances?

Monte doesn't even claim they shouldn't primarily or typically be major screw-ups by character incompetence

What do you think, then, is the meaning of the phrase far more often it should be some external circumstance? Which is used to contrast with such screw-ups as accidentally shooting a friend or dropping a weapon?

But this is a secondary point (as [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has pointed out not very far upthread). Even if he thinks that incursions should, typically, be major screw-ups, he nevertheless contrasts major screw-ups with external circumstances that are not, in-fiction, causally downstream. Why? Why are these the two options he puts on the table?

GM Intrusions are not necessarily big events

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "big event". I used the phrase in post 302 upthread, which was a reply to you:

if the idea is that a nat 1 result should, in some way, stand out from a typical failure, then something bigger and more distinctive has to happen on a nat 1.​

Otherwise, what is the point of the intrusion-triggered-by-nat-1 mechanic?

different events and big events are not synonyms

Can we please move on from semantics! In post 302 I made it clear what I am meaning by the phrase "big event" - I mean something different from a normal failure, that stands out enough to make the mechanic worth having at all. If you don't like the phrase I've chosen to use, fine - I'm not wedded to it, I just wanted something to pithily express the point.

But I'm pretty sure my choice of phrase isn't the most interesting thing to talk about - as opposed to Monte's reasons for saying that incursions should, far more often, be external circumstances. I'm interested in why his rejection of major screw-ups leads him to this particular claim. It's not self-evident, and in fact - in light of the whole "dissociated mechanics" debate - I would have thought is very controversial. There are certainly many posts upthread which have rejected Monte's suggestion, on grounds that "external circumstances" mean the GM is making things up out of thin air, etc.

Reason (3)

In the post you have quoted I am not stating reasons. I am interpreting Monte Cook's blog, and offering a conjecture as to why he says the things that he says. In the post of mine that you quoted, (1) to (3) are not reasons but properties/attributes of narrated events. I am conjecturing that there are not very many possible in-fiction events that exhibit all three properties, and that this is why Monte - in affirming that intrusions should satisfy (1) and (2) - is led to say that, far more often, they will not exhibit (3) but instead (3') - that is, will be events which, in fiction, are not causally downstream of the failing characer's action.

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)

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...

OK, so this is the sort of thing I actually was hoping to talk about!

What does the equipment failure flow from, in in-fiction causal terms?

If it flows from the PC's misuse, then we are getting back into the territory of major screw-ups or a compication from someone doing something wront.

So presumably we are talking, here, about failure that follows simply from use.

Is there an important difference between (i) the GM deciding, on a nat 1, that a piece of equipment has worn out or malfunctioned from use even though the cause of that (eg metal fatigue, drained power supply, etc) was not a hitherto-established element of the shared fiction, and (ii) the GM deciding, on a nat 1, that another enemy turns up even though the presence of that enemy just slightly off-screen was not a hitherto-established element of the shared fiction?

If (i) draws support and in-fiction plausibity from the idea that, in Numenara, technology is poorly understood and jury-rigged, can (ii) be given support and in-fiction plausibility by having the GM emphasise that , in his/her gameworld, things are often not as they seem and foes rarely show their hand all at once?

And conversely, and relating this to some of the concerns express someway upthread: if (ii) becomes a less plausible move in a game in which the PCs do a lot of scouting and other intelligence gathering, what happens to (i) if the PCs have very high repair skills, spend a lot of time emphasising how well they are maintaining their equipment, etc?

 

[Imaro]

Well, quite. My claim is that he is going further, though, and pointing out that - once you try and do that - you find that you have to narrate "bad things" that, in the fiction, are not causally downstream of the failing character's action.

He isn't saying that... and you've provided no quotes where he does.

Because obviously I've got nothing better to do with my time that post purposeful misstatements of Monte Cook on the interwebs!

Or you're so hung up on supporting your own view you're incorrectly reading intent that hasn't been stated. External does not equate to not causally linked to the character's actions...

You haven't really given me the benefit of the doubt - you've accused me of purposefully misstating Monte Cook's stance! But anyway, I'll repeat, again, the key passage from Monte Cook's blog, and will bold a key phrase:

[T]he 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.

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.​

Here we see Monte indicating:

(1) That a nat 1 is not just a fail. It's a trigger for something more than a failure - what, upthread, I called a "big" or distincitve event. Something other than "nothing happens".

(2) That typically, even primarily, such events ought not to be due to major screw-ups by the failing character (not something "wrong" that the character did).

(3') Following on from (2), that far more often these events should be external circumstances such as reinforcements, rather than events that (in-fiction) are causally downstream of the failing character's action.​

No... again external circumstances does not necessarily equate to "not causally linked". The external circumstances could wholly have come about because of your actions and that, IMO, is the flaw in your argument.

Oh, and I haven't given you the benefit of the doubt because you've continually chosen to attribute your own conclusion to Monte and Charles when nothing they've said equates to what you are claiming.

And I am asking the question: why (3')? My conjectured answer (not an assumption) is that there are simply not enough events that are possible within the fiction that satisfy (1) and (2), yet nevertheless are causally downstream of the failing character's action.

First time I've seen you state that it's your conjectured answer without invoking Monte's name...

This is his reason for affirming (2), yes. But on it own it tells us nothing about (3) or (3'). And that is what I am interested in.

If you're interested in that fine but then why keep claiming it's what Monte and Charles are stating/concluding? When you have no proof of that?

I'm not even talking abot his reason for wanting to reduce ineptness-driven fumbles! I'm asking why, given that he wants to do this, is he moved to say that they should be mostly external circumstances?

Because internal circumstances are the fault of something within the character and that has the potential to makes players feel bad, embarrassed and/or the game less fun... What you're missing is that external does not equate to non-causal. it just means something internal to the character didn't cause it...

What do you think, then, is the meaning of the phrase far more often it should be some external circumstance? Which is used to contrast with such screw-ups as accidentally shooting a friend or dropping a weapon?

See my answer above...

But this is a secondary point (as @Balesir has pointed out not very far upthread). Even if he thinks that incursions should, typically, be major screw-ups, he nevertheless contrasts major screw-ups with external circumstances that are not, in-fiction, causally downstream. Why? Why are these the two options he puts on the table?

He (Monte) never used the words non-causal... see how you do that, you are mis-stating what he said... he used the word external... not non-causal.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "big event". I used the phrase in post 302 upthread, which was a reply to you:

if the idea is that a nat 1 result should, in some way, stand out from a typical failure, then something bigger and more distinctive has to happen on a nat 1.​

Otherwise, what is the point of the intrusion-triggered-by-nat-1 mechanic?

To complicate things... doesn't mean it has to be "bigger" than missing and not killing your opponent this round (which would win the fight and make you a hero!!), just different from not causing damage...

Can we please move on from semantics! In post 302 I made it clear what I am meaning by the phrase "big event" - I mean something different from a normal failure, that stands out enough to make the mechanic worth having at all. If you don't like the phrase I've chosen to use, fine - I'm not wedded to it, I just wanted something to pithily express the point.

In what language are big and different synonyms... it's not semantics it's being unclear in what you are expressing... but yes now that we've established you use different and big interchangeably we can move on...

But I'm pretty sure my choice of phrase isn't the most interesting thing to talk about - as opposed to Monte's reasons for saying that incursions should, far more often, be external circumstances. I'm interested in why his rejection of major screw-ups leads him to this particular claim. It's not self-evident, and in fact - in light of the whole "dissociated mechanics" debate - I would have thought is very controversial. There are certainly many posts upthread which have rejected Monte's suggestion, on grounds that "external circumstances" mean the GM is making things up out of thin air, etc.

It is self-evident and pretty simple if you don't equate the word "external" to mean "non-causal"... as you have continuously done, or is this more examples of semantics and these two words actually have the same meaning (like big and different apparently do) ?

In the post you have quoted I am not stating reasons. I am interpreting Monte Cook's blog, and offering a conjecture as to why he says the things that he says. In the post of mine that you quoted, (1) to (3) are not reasons but properties/attributes of narrated events. I am conjecturing that there are not very many possible in-fiction events that exhibit all three properties, and that this is why Monte - in affirming that intrusions should satisfy (1) and (2) - is led to say that, far more often, they will not exhibit (3) but instead (3') - that is, will be events which, in fiction, are not causally downstream of the failing characer's action.

And I still believe you are mis-stating his stance in confusing something being external having to be the same as non-causal... It;s not semantics and words matter, especially when your whole argument rests on equating two words that don't mean the same thing with each other.

OK, so this is the sort of thing I actually was hoping to talk about!

That's great and I would have happily conversed about it if it hadn't been prefaced with your own interjections on why Monte believes something that you've not yet proven to be true. If instead you had said hey... I pemerton think there aren't enough... X to accomplish Y... we'd have been discussing it already. Instead you tried to draw on Cook for support of your argument, and when you do that I'm going to ask you to back your assertion up with proof.

What does the equipment failure flow from, in in-fiction causal terms?

If it flows from the PC's misuse, then we are getting back into the territory of major screw-ups or a compication from someone doing something wront.

So presumably we are talking, here, about failure that follows simply from use.

One of the "world" conceits of Numenera is that technology is poorly understood, scavenged from a mostly unknown past (along with aliens, other dimensions, etc.), haphazardly rejiggered for purposes it wasn't originally intended for and often dangerous in unknown ways.

Is there an important difference between (i) the GM deciding, on a nat 1, that a piece of equipment has worn out or malfunctioned from use even though the cause of that (eg metal fatigue, drained power supply, etc) was not a hitherto-established element of the shared fiction, and (ii) the GM deciding, on a nat 1, that another enemy turns up even though the presence of that enemy just slightly off-screen was not a hitherto-established element of the shared fiction?

The difference is that in choosing to play Numenera you have already accepted the conceit that unknowable (to your character) causes can affect technology and equipment in weird and dangerous ways. 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...

If (i) draws support and in-fiction plausibity from the idea that, in Numenara, technology is poorly understood and jury-rigged, can (ii) be given support and in-fiction plausibility by having the GM emphasise that , in his/her gameworld, things are often not as they seem and foes rarely show their hand all at once?

IMO the second example strains credibility alot because it's too vague and too broad. Also what is the actual in-game reason here?... there is an in-game reason for why the technology in Numenera is poorly understood and at times dangerous...what would be the in-game reason for the fact that enemies hold back their forces and perfectly hide them?

 

[Balesir]

No... again external circumstances does not necessarily equate to "not causally linked". The external circumstances could wholly have come about because of your actions and that, IMO, is the flaw in your argument.

So, you are reading Monte as saying the non-incompetence related complication must be causally related to the action the character was rolling for, but external to... what, exactly? I just read "external" as meaning "external to the character's action". You, apparently, have some other externality in mind?

The difference is that in choosing to play Numenera you have already accepted the conceit that unknowable (to your character) causes can affect technology and equipment in weird and dangerous ways. 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...

Funny - I live in a world where random, undetected (by me) creatures frequently come to my attention nearby. OK, not generally "out of thin air" (when did that get added as a requirement?) - usually from around a corner, or out from under some sort of cover. Our cats often pop up without me having previously realised they were about. Is there some special reason why roleplaying characters are immune to ever having this sort of thing happen?

IMO the second example strains credibility alot because it's too vague and too broad. Also what is the actual in-game reason here?... there is an in-game reason for why the technology in Numenera is poorly understood and at times dangerous...what would be the in-game reason for the fact that enemies hold back their forces and perfectly hide them?

Because said "enemy" was in another room (or just over a nearby rise or behind some nearby building) and unaware that some ne'er-do-well murder hobo was about to attack their friends and/or family?

Or maybe a herd of wild cattle that were out of sight but not out of earshot got spooked by the din of combat and stampeded? Or maybe a dragon or chimaera was flying overhead when it noticed that some tasty morsels might become available as a result of that fight down there - especially if the carrion-to-be were given some "assistance" in dying...

In short - there are hundreds of plausible reasons why happenstance might bring unexpected friends (from either side) into the situation. Maybe the "Intrusion on a 1" mechanic will only occasion a subset of those (friends of the PCs' opponents turn up), but other Intrusion mechanics exist that might trigger the rest.

 

[Imaro]

So, you are reading Monte as saying the non-incompetence related complication must be causally related to the action the character was rolling for, but external to... what, exactly? I just read "external" as meaning "external to the character's action". You, apparently, have some other externality in mind?

No... I don't think he's making a comment on whether it should be causally linked or not... only that the intrusion should at times be external to the character (if internal ones aren't fun for the players)... in other words not caused through his own ineptness (in whatever area is being rolled for)... since that is an internal (to the character) trait. As to whether they should or shouldn't be causally linked... that's for the individual GM to decide. As I said earlier I have used both.

Funny - I live in a world where random, undetected (by me) creatures frequently come to my attention nearby. OK, not generally "out of thin air" (when did that get added as a requirement?) - usually from around a corner, or out from under some sort of cover. Our cats often pop up without me having previously realised they were about. Is there some special reason why roleplaying characters are immune to ever having this sort of thing happen?

Sooo... you fail your perception test... alot. That seems internal to me.

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).

Because said "enemy" was in another room (or just over a nearby rise or behind some nearby building) and unaware that some ne'er-do-well murder hobo was about to attack their friends and/or family?

Or maybe a herd of wild cattle that were out of sight but not out of earshot got spooked by the din of combat and stampeded? Or maybe a dragon or chimaera was flying overhead when it noticed that some tasty morsels might become available as a result of that fight down there - especially if the carrion-to-be were given some "assistance" in dying...

In short - there are hundreds of plausible reasons why happenstance might bring unexpected friends (from either side) into the situation. Maybe the "Intrusion on a 1" mechanic will only occasion a subset of those (friends of the PCs' opponents turn up), but other Intrusion mechanics exist that might trigger the rest.

You're loosing me here... what was your point again? 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 contention is that it's not the same as an equipment malfunction in the world of Numenera... where the character is using the equipment and thus it is causal but it cannot be his character's fault in an internal way because the malfunction has nothing to do with his own abilities. 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...

 

[Maxperson]

So, you are reading Monte as saying the non-incompetence related complication must be causally related to the action the character was rolling for, but external to... what, exactly? I just read "external" as meaning "external to the character's action". You, apparently, have some other externality in mind?

I read it as external to the character. The PC slips would not be external to the character. The PC is the one slipping. The sword breaks is external to the PC. The PC is not the one breaking the sword. That was just bad luck. Both can be linked to causally to the attack, though.

 

[Hussar]

I read it as external to the character. The PC slips would not be external to the character. The PC is the one slipping. The sword breaks is external to the PC. The PC is not the one breaking the sword. That was just bad luck. Both can be linked to causally to the attack, though.

That's some pretty fine hair splitting. It is the character's sword after all and it is the character's action which directly leads to the sword breaking. Character attacks, misses, hits the sword on something else (shield, ground, wall, whatever), and breaks the sword. I'm not really convinced that's external to the character, or, if it is, just barely.

I would have thought that external means exactly that - not linked in any way to the character. Thus, the fumble might cause more enemies to arrive - completely external to the character's actions.

 

[Maxperson]

That's some pretty fine hair splitting. It is the character's sword after all and it is the character's action which directly leads to the sword breaking. Character attacks, misses, hits the sword on something else (shield, ground, wall, whatever), and breaks the sword. I'm not really convinced that's external to the character, or, if it is, just barely.

I would have thought that external means exactly that - not linked in any way to the character. Thus, the fumble might cause more enemies to arrive - completely external to the character's actions.

There is no hair splitting involved. External is external. Period. If a PC fireballs a hut, his action caused an external explosion and damage to the hut. The damage to the hut isn't internal to the PC. The result is all that matters when it comes to internal or external. Not the action.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no hair splitting involved. External is external. Period. If a PC fireballs a hut, his action caused an external explosion and damage to the hut. The damage to the hut isn't internal to the PC. The result is all that matters when it comes to internal or external. Not the action.

I thought this conversation was talking about internal vs external as it relates to the action, rather than to the character.

Because there's a huge difference between critically failing and breaking your sword, vs critically failing and it turns out there were more guards in the next room who come rushing in. It's a significant distinction that the narrative result is something which follows from the action which was failed, rather than a bad thing happening that's totally unrelated to the action at hand.

If your critical failure is either you stab yourself or you stab an ally, then that doesn't seem like a useful distinction. The outcome logically follows from the action, in either case.

 

[Imaro]

I thought this conversation was talking about internal vs external as it relates to the action, rather than to the character.

Because there's a huge difference between critically failing and breaking your sword, vs critically failing and it turns out there were more guards in the next room who come rushing in. It's a significant distinction that the narrative result is something which follows from the action which was failed, rather than a bad thing happening that's totally unrelated to the action at hand.

If your critical failure is either you stab yourself or you stab an ally, then that doesn't seem like a useful distinction. The outcome logically follows from the action, in either case.

I believe you're speaking to causal fumbles/failures (where whatever happens follows, in some logical fashion, from the action taking place)... I take external to mean outside the province of the character's abilities/aptitudes as the driving force causing it to happen.

EDIT: This line from the article sums it up for me...

Far more often, it should be some external circumstance that arises, and not something “wrong” that the character did.

IMO he's saying as opposed to character X shooting his friend in the arm/dropping his weapon (something he did) his weapon could jam/malfunction (an external circumstance)... Now whether the external circumstance follows causally from the action or not is, IMO, a different discussion... the example above does, but I could just as easily replace it with one that doesn't... such as a hitherto unnoticed cut above your eye begins to bleed profusely clouding your vision... or the sound of combat has drawn a strange creature from the edge of the forest nearby to investigate the noise...

 

[Maxperson]

I thought this conversation was talking about internal vs external as it relates to the action, rather than to the character.

Because there's a huge difference between critically failing and breaking your sword, vs critically failing and it turns out there were more guards in the next room who come rushing in. It's a significant distinction that the narrative result is something which follows from the action which was failed, rather than a bad thing happening that's totally unrelated to the action at hand.

If your critical failure is either you stab yourself or you stab an ally, then that doesn't seem like a useful distinction. The outcome logically follows from the action, in either case.

Right, but the difference between stabbing someone accidentally and a weapon breaking accidentally is that the PC has no control and is not in any way responsible for the weapon breaking.