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?

 

[TerraDave]

The mechanic he describes is interesting.

But the rational: oh, poor baby roll a 1...I mean why roll dice at all, just win everything always, that would be a good game.

 

[lyle.spade]

In d20 games our house rule is if you roll a 1, you re-roll the die and something interesting happens if you roll a 1-5 on that second roll. I think this is where it's obvious that a good GM will seek to make things interesting and challenging for player through this, rather than just creating problems for them. As for frequency, think of this: if you have a decent firearm and use you at least decent ammunition, you will not get but a few jams, bad loads, or other issues in thousands of rounds fired. Always having fumble on a 1 is accepting that 5% of the time you are going to screw up royally. If I had a weapon that jammed on 1 of 20 rounds, I've got a piece of crap weapon and need a new one. This is why I ask for the second roll to confirm the fumble.

And no, I don't know what the probability is, overall, for fumbles through my house rule - that's not my gaming style. It feels okay; my players are cool with it; and it doesn't slow the game down.

 

[JudgeMonroe]

The mechanic he describes is interesting.

But the rational: oh, poor baby roll a 1...I mean why roll dice at all, just win everything always, that would be a good game.

That's not a very good characterization of the rationale at all. A roll of 1 on a d20 happens 5% of the time. In almost any RPG, the player characters are by definition exceptional people -- are they going to *fumble*, *screw the pooch*, *bollocks up the whole thing* 5% of the time? Probably not. They'll fail, and *sometimes* they will fail spectacularly, but if we're going to treat 1 in d20 as something special, better to make that something an interesting opportunity instead of some slapstick reversal, right?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Fumble mechanics are ridiculous in a d20 system. If there was a 5% chance of a catastrophe whenever you used a skill, then most people would be dead by the end of the month.

Failure is its own punishment, just as success is its own reward. There's no need to shoe-horn extra special success/failure into a binary pass/fail system.

 

[Mortellan]

I agree Dave,
If you allow crits, especially in a system with possible improved crit chances like D&D, I gotta have a counter balance. 3.5/Pathfinder is especially ridiculous. Criticalling on 1/4 of your attacks is easy to accomplish, but a measly 5% chance to goof up? Boo!

No fumbles, then no crits.

 

[Mortellan]

Fumble mechanics are ridiculous in a d20 system. If there was a 5% chance of a catastrophe whenever you used a skill, then most people would be dead by the end of the month.

Failure is its own punishment, just as success is its own reward. There's no need to shoe-horn extra special success/failure into a binary pass/fail system.

Somewhat agree. The difference is skill checks in encounters are under duress so yes there should be screw ups. Skill checks in every day life are always going to be successful at least since 3e skill rules have been around.

 

[aka_pg]

Reminds me of "6x - One Page RPG." For each roll of the die, the positive result is described by the player and a proportionate negative result is decided on by the GM. 4 levels of varying success/failure are agreed upon and the die is rolled. The example given:

Zuabi the thief wants to steal the purse of a particularly ostentatious gentleman in the crowd.
1. Success! Zuabi gets away clean with money for a year.
2. Success, but the purse is lighter than expected.
3. Success, but there’s a hole in the bag and a trail of gold leading to Zuabi, could be trouble later.
4. Slippery hands mean no gold, but at least he’s safe.
5. Failure and the constable has taken notice.
6. Failure! The man’s bodyguards seize the boy and drag him into an alley for his due punishment.

Might get tedious, but it really incorporates cooperative story telling. Perhaps for key plot points, a GM and players might use a similar approach.

 

[JudgeMonroe]

Somewhat agree. The difference is skill checks in encounters are under duress so yes there should be screw ups. Skill checks in every day life are always going to be successful at least since 3e skill rules have been around.

In *skill checks* a natural 20 has no particular significance. All that matter is whether you hit the DC, regardless of how the die rolls. I don't know why you'd introduce a fumble mechanic into that rule.

 

[TerraDave]

That's not a very good characterization of the rationale at all. ...

No, it is. He is talking about "Bruce's" feelings here.

Yes, the % is high, though as noted in the thread, it is symmetric with critical hits. And its not a simulation, but a game where you want interesting stuff to happen pretty often.

But it was really more the tone. As I said, the actual mechanic is interesting.