Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7694676" data-attributes="member: 48965">You can't do this in D&D (which was the system being referenced) which was my point, a new system is necessary to model it(or are we now switching to another system to "prove" it's not a fumble?).  Now you could model it a some new type of critical success but it could also be modeled as a fumble... so you saying you would model it in a different way doesn't prove it's not a fumble...Never claimed it was... in fact I specifically called out it was him as well as a few other posters... Still doesn't prove or disprove the correctness of making said assertion though...No it does not pretty much mean it "requires" an effect that is even worse than failure...  This is totally dependent on the system being used and what it's limitations are... which is why the arguing that these fictional examples aren't fumbles is so silly.  Until we agree upon what the system is and what a fumble constitutes in said system... both anything and nothing are valid as "fumbles".While I agree with your traditional defintion of fumbles... I in no way see how clumsiness, bungling, or making a mess of something during an action must logically and in all situations lead to severed limbs, the gouging out of friends eyes and decapitations... That's how you and a few others personally choose to define a fumble but taht's all it is, your personal view of what a "fumble" is.</blockquote>