Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7694541" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Ok, cool. I wasn't familiar with that variant. </p><p></p><p>That being said, it looks like an OSR clone, so the connection to the Dragon magazine article may be more direct than you think.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I got that part, however, I have two responses to that.</p><p></p><p>First of all, nothing guarantees that the DMs intrusion is necessarily more plausible, interesting, or fun than referencing a table. When you require a GM to improvise a fiat fumble on a very regular basis, you run a rather high risk that the GM will create results with consequences no one - including the GM - is prepared for or finds fun or that in frustration the GM will throw up his hands and default to a small set of stock results that are easy to resolve.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, the reason I brought up the poor design of one particular very famous fumble table is that quite often, people with only the experience of badly designed fumble tables and resulting table arguments, will argue that GM intrusion is inherently superior and even necessary because fumble tables always produce unbalanced and illogical results.</p><p></p><p>UPDATE: And I see that as I was thinking about this, Maxperson posted this very claim in the post above mine.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Part of the reason that I'm not a big fan of fumbles as a system wide mechanic that potentially applies to any roll you make, is that quite often the stakes of a roll are such that there is no obvious catastrophe that can happen on failure. In order for situations to occasionally go disastrously wrong regardless of what the situation is, the GM will have to retroactively insert or invent details about the game fiction. An example would be you fail a check to open a lock, and as a result the lock doesn't merely remain closed but the DM invents on the spot a trap, or a second security feature, or a wandering patrol that arrives which didn't formerly exist in the fiction. To me that feels like that opens up too much potential for unfair rulings by the GM, with players being punished for well conceived plans that simply go awry because of random chance. </p><p></p><p>Now, that's not to say I'm opposed to catastrophic failure if the stakes of the situation demand it. If a player wants to leap across a deep chasm, then obviously the stakes are, "Jump across or fall into pit." If the player tries to get a wand to function, the stakes might be, "Wand functions, wand malfunctions, or nothing happens.", where the degree of success determines between the three results. If the player tries to shoot a giant octopi that another player is grappling with, the stakes might be, "Hit octopus, miss entirely, or hit ally.", again with some mechanic based on degree of success to determine whether you succeed, merely fail, or catastrophically fail. But systems that try to create a universal mechanic of failure, as Cypher and FantasyCraft do, leave me rather cold because as a GM I rather dislike systems that require routine GM intrusion. The risk a player might have feelings hurt because he failed catastrophically (at least with my players) are insignificant compared to a player holding a grudge because he felt I made a wholly unfair fiat ruling. Likewise, since I strive to be the GM I'd like to have as a player, as a player receiving consequences that can't be inferred from the proposition or the stakes strikes me as vastly reducing my agency as a player, as the world starts to behave cartoon world or narrative logic far beyond my ability to control or plan for. That might be OK if we are playing 'Toon', where the whole point is to highlight the funny, but it doesn't necessarily make for good gaming in other genres or styles.</p><p></p><p>And of course, my personal feelings on whether fumbles are a good idea are not, is still tangential to the main points that whatever you call them, GM intrusions in Cypher are fumbles and bad rolls always punish the player (otherwise, in what sense are they 'bad'?).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7694541, member: 4937"] Ok, cool. I wasn't familiar with that variant. That being said, it looks like an OSR clone, so the connection to the Dragon magazine article may be more direct than you think. I got that part, however, I have two responses to that. First of all, nothing guarantees that the DMs intrusion is necessarily more plausible, interesting, or fun than referencing a table. When you require a GM to improvise a fiat fumble on a very regular basis, you run a rather high risk that the GM will create results with consequences no one - including the GM - is prepared for or finds fun or that in frustration the GM will throw up his hands and default to a small set of stock results that are easy to resolve. Secondly, the reason I brought up the poor design of one particular very famous fumble table is that quite often, people with only the experience of badly designed fumble tables and resulting table arguments, will argue that GM intrusion is inherently superior and even necessary because fumble tables always produce unbalanced and illogical results. UPDATE: And I see that as I was thinking about this, Maxperson posted this very claim in the post above mine. Part of the reason that I'm not a big fan of fumbles as a system wide mechanic that potentially applies to any roll you make, is that quite often the stakes of a roll are such that there is no obvious catastrophe that can happen on failure. In order for situations to occasionally go disastrously wrong regardless of what the situation is, the GM will have to retroactively insert or invent details about the game fiction. An example would be you fail a check to open a lock, and as a result the lock doesn't merely remain closed but the DM invents on the spot a trap, or a second security feature, or a wandering patrol that arrives which didn't formerly exist in the fiction. To me that feels like that opens up too much potential for unfair rulings by the GM, with players being punished for well conceived plans that simply go awry because of random chance. Now, that's not to say I'm opposed to catastrophic failure if the stakes of the situation demand it. If a player wants to leap across a deep chasm, then obviously the stakes are, "Jump across or fall into pit." If the player tries to get a wand to function, the stakes might be, "Wand functions, wand malfunctions, or nothing happens.", where the degree of success determines between the three results. If the player tries to shoot a giant octopi that another player is grappling with, the stakes might be, "Hit octopus, miss entirely, or hit ally.", again with some mechanic based on degree of success to determine whether you succeed, merely fail, or catastrophically fail. But systems that try to create a universal mechanic of failure, as Cypher and FantasyCraft do, leave me rather cold because as a GM I rather dislike systems that require routine GM intrusion. The risk a player might have feelings hurt because he failed catastrophically (at least with my players) are insignificant compared to a player holding a grudge because he felt I made a wholly unfair fiat ruling. Likewise, since I strive to be the GM I'd like to have as a player, as a player receiving consequences that can't be inferred from the proposition or the stakes strikes me as vastly reducing my agency as a player, as the world starts to behave cartoon world or narrative logic far beyond my ability to control or plan for. That might be OK if we are playing 'Toon', where the whole point is to highlight the funny, but it doesn't necessarily make for good gaming in other genres or styles. And of course, my personal feelings on whether fumbles are a good idea are not, is still tangential to the main points that whatever you call them, GM intrusions in Cypher are fumbles and bad rolls always punish the player (otherwise, in what sense are they 'bad'?). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
Top