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?

 

[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.