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?

 

[Imaro]

As has been said many, many times in the thread - fumbles don't model failure. Fumbles model things well beyond plain failure. In the typical fumble system, stepping on a twig and being herd is not a fumble - it is just a plain failure. On a fumble, he'd have tripped and put the stick through his eye.

You keep trying to impose a necessary extreme self infliccted/ally inflicted harm component to a fumble... but I think that may be your particular hang up around fumbles as opposed to how fumbles (houseruled and as part of a particular rpg) actually work...

 

[Imaro]

I missed where Luke slipped and fell in a fight with random mooks. In fact, I'm kinda missing where the hero's weapon breaks in any situation other than a specific high tension one. Han fails to open the doors to the Power Generator and the blast doors fall. This has exactly zero consequence because two seconds later Chewie shows up to open the doors.

Well... there was that one time where Luke is fully aware there are sand people nearby and is actively looking for them... with advanced equipment...in a hiding place with a droid accompanying him... but is ambushed by a sand person literally a few feet directly in front of him and beaten senseless... I could definitely see that being the result of a fumble on a PC's Perception roll...

 

[RotGrub]

This is incorrect. It's discussed at length in the 3e and 3.5e DMG, and Angry DM usefully goes through it again here (about halfway down). Anything that adds randomness to combat favours the underdog, and since in D&D combats the monsters are the underdogs almost all the time, that means they work against the PCs.

Rationally, players should be opposed to the use of both critical hits and fumbles.

(Note: that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't use Fumbles. That's a matter of taste.)

I love randomness because it allows the underdog (not the character with the maxed out scores) to shine once and a while.

If you remove randomness, the players have no chance to do the impossible. It's all those unbelievable events that are most memorable in my opinion. We all remember the time the BBEG fumbled his spell and the mage crit him to death with his pocket knife.... IMO, that's D&D and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Maxperson]

As has been said many, many times in the thread - fumbles don't model failure. Fumbles model things well beyond plain failure.

They do model failure. Sure, it's an increased degree of failure, but it's still just failure. If that's the degree to which your group wants failure to exist, then fumble rules can be a good thing. If it's not the degree to which your group wants failure to exist, then it's probably a bad thing.

In the typical fumble system, stepping on a twig and being herd is not a fumble - it is just a plain failure. On a fumble, he'd have tripped and put the stick through his eye.

That's an excessive example. Fumbles are not all about losing eyes and limbs. Up a ways the example where Han not only stepped on that twig and lost his surprise round, but was also then surprised himself is a great example of a fumble that doesn't involve excessive silliness like losing an eye to the twig.

If you want to discuss fumbles and Star Wars, you probably have to go to Jar Jar Binks, and I don't think anyone in the thread wants that.

Jar Jar who? I seem to have a rather odd series of holes in my memory when it comes to some of the "Star Wars" movies.

 

[Maxperson]

This is incorrect. It's discussed at length in the 3e and 3.5e DMG, and Angry DM usefully goes through it again here (about halfway down). Anything that adds randomness to combat favours the underdog, and since in D&D combats the monsters are the underdogs almost all the time, that means they work against the PCs.

Rationally, players should be opposed to the use of both critical hits and fumbles.

(Note: that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't use Fumbles. That's a matter of taste.)

So you think that PCs being 3-5x more likely to crit than the monsters favors the monsters?

 

[delericho]

If you remove randomness...

Again, nobody is arguing for randomness to be removed. It's a question of how much randomness is appropriate.

 

[Umbran]

You keep trying to impose a necessary extreme self infliccted/ally inflicted harm component to a fumble... but I think that may be your particular hang up around fumbles as opposed to how fumbles (houseruled and as part of a particular rpg) actually work...

I am choosing those because the extent of the issue becomes obvious if it is physical harm. And, historically, most people's first experience with fumble rules likely comes from combat, and there the results are frequently damage to the character or the character's allies. Yes, one can construct fumbles with less outright physical damage done to a character, but the basic premise of fumbles is that the failure becomes a significant issue well beyond "I failed to do what I intended to do".

The fact remains that stepping on a stick and being heard is a *basic* failure in a Move Silently check, not a fumble. Basic failures should not be used as a reason for having fumble rules.

 

[delericho]

So you think that PCs being 3-5x more likely to crit than the monsters favors the monsters?

No, those are two different things.

The existence of critical hits at all favours the monsters.

The fact that PCs get those expanded critical ranges is an artifact of them being so vastly superior to the monsters in the first place. Take away those options and they'd take something else and overwhelm them just the same.

 

[Imaro]

I am choosing those because the extent of the issue becomes obvious if it is physical harm. And, historically, most people's first experience with fumble rules likely comes from combat, and there the results are frequently damage to the character or the character's allies. Yes, one can construct fumbles with less outright physical damage done to a character, but the basic premise of fumbles is that the failure becomes a significant issue well beyond "I failed to do what I intended to do".

The fact remains that stepping on a stick and being heard is a *basic* failure in a Move Silently check, not a fumble. Basic failures should not be used as a reason for having fumble rules.

Does a basic failure on stealth also give the enemy a surprise round? a fumble probably would (but then so could a GM intrusion)... The problem with discussing fumbles with your examples is that they are going to the extreme (not just hit point loss, but you loose a limb or an eye... really??) and it makes them kind of ridiculous for a serious discussion.

 

[billd91]

I love randomness because it allows the underdog (not the character with the maxed out scores) to shine once and a while.

If you remove randomness, the players have no chance to do the impossible. It's all those unbelievable events that are most memorable in my opinion. We all remember the time the BBEG fumbled his spell and the mage crit him to death with his pocket knife.... IMO, that's D&D and I wouldn't have it any other way.

There's definitely an element of both being right here. Looking back at the D&D I've played and DMed in the last 15 years, all of the PC deaths I've inflicted among one group have been because of critical hits - and some fairly harsh ones at that (x4 damage from a scythe-wielding cultist in 3.0, x3 damage from a greataxe wielding minotaur in 3.0, crit from a wraith in 5). Yet each of those events is also memorable. Hardly anybody remembers the fights that boiled down to nickel and diming the opponent until it dropped. We remember the more extreme results.