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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7695387" data-attributes="member: 42582">My apologies. I took you to be saying that when you said that such a conception of fumbles is overly narrow.See, here, you seem to be agreeing with Monte Cook also - because you are just repeating what Charles Ryan has said is the whole point of the blog - that treating nat 1 as a major-screw-up is not a good approach, and is too narrow a conception of what might happen on a (so-called) "fumble".I'm having trouble following this.You seem to be saying that Charles Ryan actually disagrees with Monte Cook. Whereas Charles Ryan presents his post as an explanation and defence of the blog.As I read it, Monte has written a blog saying that a nat 1 shouldn't be a major-screw-up-style fumble. Charles Ryan has weighed in agreeing with him, saying that a nat 1 can be broader than that, including encompassing events that (in the fiction) are not causally related to the action that (at the table) had an outcome determined by rolling a d20 that came up 1.The key issue in both Monte's blog and Charles Ryan's post is a question about game design and game play (what to do on a nat 1), not a question of semantics (about the best use of the word "fumble"). Clearly there can be multiple uses of the word "fumble", but I think it's very clear how Monte was using it, and this clear sense in which he was using it has been confirmed by Charles Ryan's post. So, to focus on the key issue: do you think Monte Cook and Charles Ryan are right, or wrong, when they say that nat 1=major-screw-up is not a good rule?I think that Monte Cook's claim (and Charles Ryan's agreement) is probably about what is typically or generally enjoyable, rather than to what is universally fun and enjoyable.As for the relationship between GM intrusions and imagined, ingame causation: I am relying on Monte Cook's and Charles Ryan's account of the system they design. I don't own it and don't play it. The posts I was engaging with were discussing GM intrusion as a device for introducing fictional events that are not, in the fiction, causally downstream of the PC's failure (eg following a missed bow shot, the arrival of reinforcements). This is also the sort of thing that the two designers were talking about. For instance, the blog says: In a combat situation, a GM intrusion can range from the opposing creature gaining an additional chance to attack for a round, to reinforcements for the opposition showing up. It could mean that the character accidentally shoots a friend, or drops her weapon, or slips and falls, but those should be rare. Far more often, it should be some external circumstance that arises, and not something “wrong” that the character did.Personally, I think it's fairly clear why Monte Cook and Charles Ryan make this suggestion: if the idea is that a nat 1 result should, in some way, stand out from a typical failure, then something bigger and more distinctive has to happen on a nat 1. But if that is not going to be a major-screw-up (which the designers think it shouldn't always, or even typically, be) then what is it going to be? And the natural answer is that it something that, within the fiction, is causally independent of the PC's action that fails. (As an aside: I assume that by "character driven" you mean an event in the fiction that, in the fiction, is caused by the PC's failing at his/her action.) If, in fact, there is an interesting and expansive set of fictional events that are:(1) Distinctive from ordinary failure; (2) Not major screw-ups; (3) Able to be imagined, in the fiction, as caused by the PC's failed action;then Monte Cook is wrong (and so is Charles Ryan in agreeing with him). Do you think there is such a set of fictional events?But if there really were no such reason, then why would Monte Cook write a blog saying that "Far more often, it should be some external circumstance that arises, and not something “wrong” that the character did"?One possibility is that he misunderstands his own system and the possibilities inherent in it.But what I think is more likely is that he is reasoning more-or-less along the lines I've just set out: that he wants a nat 1 to be a big event, but not a major screw-up, and that there are simply not enough infiction possibilities that satisfy both these desiderata while nevertheless being causally downstream of the failed character action.Anyway, I think the question about whether Monte Cook and Charles Ryan are correct about this is much more interesting than arguing over what the canonical use of the word "fumble" should be.</blockquote>

Verification