Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7694501" data-attributes="member: 5142">How is a player rolling a 1 equivalent of a critical fumble? It's simply an artificial mechanic of the game system. Because they don't want that sort of punishment for their system. Why does it need to be more complicated than that? For the record, it's not called a "critical hit" in the Cypher System. Rolls 1 and 17-20 are simply called "special rolls." And rolling a Natural 1 can result in bad things happening as a consequence of the GM Intrusion. This seems hyperbolically hostile toward someone else's preferred game style and tone. It does not mean that no one should lose. If you think so, you may be reading too much into what Monte Cook is saying. A Natural 1, for example, may introduce a complication (e.g. more guards) that does result in a PK or other more severe complications other than a simple "critical fumble." I would disagree that this article "is seeming to validate a very immature emotional response." Frustration is a natural feeling for players at the game table, and I don't think that it is an immature emotional response. I don't think that Monte Cook conflates "good natured ribbing" with "ill-tempered or arrogant mockery." Again, as Monte Cook in the article says early on, "It’s a funny moment, and we’ve all been there..." He clearly recognizes that there is often good-natured ribbing involved with the Natural 1. But game mechanics do affect the tone of the game and how they are played. Some game mechanics, particularly in some co-op board games (game vs. player), engender a sense of urgency. And this does impact the players themselves. For me, the GM Intrusion does not exist as a miracle cure-all for this ribbing, whether good- or ill-natured, but it is meant to shift the tone of their game away from a particular cultural norm surrounding the d20 Natural 1 roll. I don't recall pointing fingers at anyone, Celebrim, nor did I intend to do so. So I apologize if you felt that my post was directly primarily at you. I read the thread, and I responded to a collective sense regarding some of the criticism, which I find to be unduly unfair to the system and the thrust of Monte Cook's argument. Failure is a part of the game. And one can fail in this game. It just does not have to be symmetrical, nor is success and failure symmetrical in this game. As I have said, there are no auto-successes (apart from the 0 TN) and there are no auto-failures. To that extent, success and failure are symmetrical. The only difference is that there are not corresponding penalties for low rolls (e.g. -3 points of damage or a minor failure effect for rolling a 2) as there are for high rolls (e.g. +3 points of damage or a minor effect for rolling a 19). Now, in your Han Solo example one could easily say that Han Solo's Natural 1 does not represent a critical fumble, but a complication introduced by a GM Intrusion. He attempted to open a blast door - rolled a 1 - but the GM decides that his tinkering instead caused a secondary blast door to also seal itself. It's also possible that Han Solo is not rolling Natural 1s and auto-failures in these occasions you list, but is simply failing his checks. Are you sure that Han Solo is rolling a 1? What if he is just rolling a 2? Is that not also a potential Stealth check failure that would get him noticed? You are welcome to call it a semantic gloss if it makes you feel better, but those "semantic glosses" matter as they impact the tone, narrative, and flexibility of the system. I'm not sure, however, how the GM Intrusion is a "reality warping jinx" anymore than the "critical fumble." You roll a one, resulting in you forgetting how to attack with your weapon and cause severe harm to another player? The GM Intrusion should be within the parameters of narrative verisimilitude. As I said before (as well as Monte Cook in his article says), a GM Intrusion in some cases may entail what amounts to a "critical fumble," if the GM deems that appropriate for the scenario. But the point that Monte Cook is making is simply that within the rules of the Cypher System, a Natural 1 is not inherently an automatic failure. And this rule assumption is, once again, in the same system in which a Natural 20 is not an automatic success either, as it is in other systems.</blockquote>

Verification