Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 7695218" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I made a will save on the herd based on the declared plan to fly at only 50' above the herd in a hippogriff. I rolled a '2'. The "DM says" in this case, that's a low enough roll that it's reasonable that the herd, which had been established in the fiction as wary and prone to stampede, did in fact do so. I then flipped a coin as to whether they would panic away from where the PC's were hiding or toward them. It came up toward them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, dice rolls, although there was really no way of handling this situation but an ad hoc ruling as I hadn't planned for this case and wasn't about to break out my Statics text book and spend hours figuring out the exact design of the support structure. I'd been rolling the whole way, but by the fourth application of 'Soften Earth and Stone' by the levitating Shaman, I set a fairly high probability that the structure would fall, rolled the dice, and it did. Since I'm the sole authority on the % chance that the support system fails, that's only color of anything but DM fiat though. However, before the plan began, the Shaman made an intelligence check to see if they could figure out the best way to bring the hut down by weakening the stone spire and rolled a natural 20. It didn't seem reasonable that the plan that I then outlined (which seemed reasonable to me based on my IRL mechanical engineering) wouldn't work if enough resources were put into it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am to.</p><p></p><p>I consider the normal process of resolution to look like this:</p><p></p><p>1) The player announces their intention to do something doubtful (the "plan" or "proposition").</p><p>2) A fortune is decided on and chanced. The stakes are generally either the PC's plan works or it doesn't.</p><p>3) The DM narrates the results depending on whether the fortune was successful.</p><p>4) Return to step #1.</p><p></p><p>Now, not every game works exactly like that, and we can talk about how different (usually newer) games have varied that structure, but for the general case its no a bad outline. Notably in the above structure, success is only that the player's proposition worked. Success doesn't guarantee the situation in the scene got better or easier. Failure doesn't guarantee things got worse.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Flying in this case required no roll whatsoever. He can successfully fly in ordinary flight without having to make any rolls at all. End of story. Now, if he wants to undertake some aerial maneuvers, like a wing-over or a power dive or even something simple like a swoop maneuver, that might require a roll for the mount assisted by the rider's ride check. And had he announced a plan with special caution to avoid spooking the herd, I probably wouldn't have even rolled. But since the player's primary concern was only avoiding getting into the herds threat zone and the primary declared intention was to 'scout the other side', I decided to chance whether the herd was spooked. Now, if the party had tried to walk past the herd, then that probably would have been tested with move silently and if the player's succeeded then the plan succeeded, end of story. Or if the party had implemented a plan to try to provoke a stampede, that probably would have been automatically successful (like 'taking 0'), end of story. Well not end of story, but back to step #1.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. And I can see the down side of fumbles and criticals as well. I don't insist that a system have them. If D&D had a bit less abstract combat, I'd probably think it would be much better off without them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, as long as we are talking 'not for me', that would be the last time I'd play at your table. I refuse to play in Bizarro world where the fiction is mutable to GM whim to that extent. In such world's, the players have no incentive to propose anything and in my experience it's all illusion of the worst sort.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, if failure in combat resulting in wounds to the character complicates the scene for everyone, then surely fumbles in combat resulting in wounds to the character complicate the scene for everyone. At the very minimum, if Wicket is an a D&D party, Wicket is losing actions the rest of the team is depending on to beat down the opponent quickly and conserve resources. But if Wicket's fumble results in Wicket being unable to adequately defend himself from attackers (say he's now stunned and prone), then this is surely a complication for everyone to at least the same extent that it would be if Wicket was wounded by a monster directly.</p><p></p><p>And thirdly, what you don't seem to fully grasp is that all the scenes I described involved SUCCESSFUL die roles that complicated the scene. No one was failing on their rolls. For that matter, many of the propositions that a player can make are not disputed. They have 0% chance of failure. They just happen because they are actions that are trivially easy for such formidable and skilled characters. To put it another way, I was just "saying Yes". The players were successfully implementing their plans. Yet the scene grew more complicated anyway simply as a result of the logical consequences of their successful actions. That's one of the several reasons your definition is not describing what is going on in my game.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>But surely to the same extent that being wounded can complicate the scene because it endangers the character, dropping one's weapon - say dropping one's magic bow over the side of a ship in the middle of the ocean while being attacked by a Sargasso spirit and a sea elf war party (something that actually happened and was an actual fumble) - complicates the scene as well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok. All I can say is my players enjoy occasionally doing extreme damage to their opponents, and don't seem to fear that occasionally their plans won't work out resulting in the appearance of incompetence for a moment.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Strange that you both recognize this is silly and unnecessary and yet criticize the mechanic and not the GM.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I keep seeing really narrow notions about what a critical or a fumble actually are that seem to be tied to very specific implementations. Far more 'orcs' have been decapitated by ordinary successes than by critical hits in my game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7695218, member: 4937"] I made a will save on the herd based on the declared plan to fly at only 50' above the herd in a hippogriff. I rolled a '2'. The "DM says" in this case, that's a low enough roll that it's reasonable that the herd, which had been established in the fiction as wary and prone to stampede, did in fact do so. I then flipped a coin as to whether they would panic away from where the PC's were hiding or toward them. It came up toward them. Again, dice rolls, although there was really no way of handling this situation but an ad hoc ruling as I hadn't planned for this case and wasn't about to break out my Statics text book and spend hours figuring out the exact design of the support structure. I'd been rolling the whole way, but by the fourth application of 'Soften Earth and Stone' by the levitating Shaman, I set a fairly high probability that the structure would fall, rolled the dice, and it did. Since I'm the sole authority on the % chance that the support system fails, that's only color of anything but DM fiat though. However, before the plan began, the Shaman made an intelligence check to see if they could figure out the best way to bring the hut down by weakening the stone spire and rolled a natural 20. It didn't seem reasonable that the plan that I then outlined (which seemed reasonable to me based on my IRL mechanical engineering) wouldn't work if enough resources were put into it. I am to. I consider the normal process of resolution to look like this: 1) The player announces their intention to do something doubtful (the "plan" or "proposition"). 2) A fortune is decided on and chanced. The stakes are generally either the PC's plan works or it doesn't. 3) The DM narrates the results depending on whether the fortune was successful. 4) Return to step #1. Now, not every game works exactly like that, and we can talk about how different (usually newer) games have varied that structure, but for the general case its no a bad outline. Notably in the above structure, success is only that the player's proposition worked. Success doesn't guarantee the situation in the scene got better or easier. Failure doesn't guarantee things got worse. Flying in this case required no roll whatsoever. He can successfully fly in ordinary flight without having to make any rolls at all. End of story. Now, if he wants to undertake some aerial maneuvers, like a wing-over or a power dive or even something simple like a swoop maneuver, that might require a roll for the mount assisted by the rider's ride check. And had he announced a plan with special caution to avoid spooking the herd, I probably wouldn't have even rolled. But since the player's primary concern was only avoiding getting into the herds threat zone and the primary declared intention was to 'scout the other side', I decided to chance whether the herd was spooked. Now, if the party had tried to walk past the herd, then that probably would have been tested with move silently and if the player's succeeded then the plan succeeded, end of story. Or if the party had implemented a plan to try to provoke a stampede, that probably would have been automatically successful (like 'taking 0'), end of story. Well not end of story, but back to step #1. Sure. And I can see the down side of fumbles and criticals as well. I don't insist that a system have them. If D&D had a bit less abstract combat, I'd probably think it would be much better off without them. First, as long as we are talking 'not for me', that would be the last time I'd play at your table. I refuse to play in Bizarro world where the fiction is mutable to GM whim to that extent. In such world's, the players have no incentive to propose anything and in my experience it's all illusion of the worst sort. Secondly, if failure in combat resulting in wounds to the character complicates the scene for everyone, then surely fumbles in combat resulting in wounds to the character complicate the scene for everyone. At the very minimum, if Wicket is an a D&D party, Wicket is losing actions the rest of the team is depending on to beat down the opponent quickly and conserve resources. But if Wicket's fumble results in Wicket being unable to adequately defend himself from attackers (say he's now stunned and prone), then this is surely a complication for everyone to at least the same extent that it would be if Wicket was wounded by a monster directly. And thirdly, what you don't seem to fully grasp is that all the scenes I described involved SUCCESSFUL die roles that complicated the scene. No one was failing on their rolls. For that matter, many of the propositions that a player can make are not disputed. They have 0% chance of failure. They just happen because they are actions that are trivially easy for such formidable and skilled characters. To put it another way, I was just "saying Yes". The players were successfully implementing their plans. Yet the scene grew more complicated anyway simply as a result of the logical consequences of their successful actions. That's one of the several reasons your definition is not describing what is going on in my game. But surely to the same extent that being wounded can complicate the scene because it endangers the character, dropping one's weapon - say dropping one's magic bow over the side of a ship in the middle of the ocean while being attacked by a Sargasso spirit and a sea elf war party (something that actually happened and was an actual fumble) - complicates the scene as well. Ok. All I can say is my players enjoy occasionally doing extreme damage to their opponents, and don't seem to fear that occasionally their plans won't work out resulting in the appearance of incompetence for a moment. Strange that you both recognize this is silly and unnecessary and yet criticize the mechanic and not the GM. I keep seeing really narrow notions about what a critical or a fumble actually are that seem to be tied to very specific implementations. Far more 'orcs' have been decapitated by ordinary successes than by critical hits in my game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
Top