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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7695410" data-attributes="member: 48965">No worries, but no... I was saying that many posters in this thread had, IMO, a very narrow concept of what a "fumble" was... this was the part of Monte's essay that I was in agreement with.I disagree with your interpretation of what he is saying... that he's saying ALWAYS treating it as a major-screw-up (that is based on the character doing something wrong) is not a good approach.  He readily admits that Monte in running his games uses both approaches... see the quotes below...See that is what I am advocating, that it still be a possible result while, and correct me if I'm wrong, you and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=5142" target="_blank">Aldarc</a> seem to be arguing that Monte is arguing for eliminating those types of fumbles entirely from the Cypher system...Nope... I'm saying you are mis-stating what Charles Ryan and Monte Cook are actually advocating for, see my post above. Again I read the article and Ryan's posts differently... they are stating that you shouldn't use that type of fumble all the time or even majority of the time but should mix it up... not claiming you shouldn't ever use fumbles and IMO this vibes with the Cypher systemsThat isn't what they are saying... they are saying over-using it, like nearly every technique, isn't a good idea.  Charles Ryan states that Monte uses these types of fumbles in his own game and even gave examples earlier...  This is what I am arguing against as it seems you and possibly @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=5142" target="_blank">Aldarc</a> are promoting this idea that these types of fumbles should be removed from a "good" game and that isn't what they are saying. I disagree again, but I think the disconnect is that you aren't correctly parsing what their stand is.  I'm not arguing against Monte or Charles, I'm arguing against your interpretation of what they are saying.How is a creature gaining an additional chance to attack for a round not a candidate for ingame causation?  Accidentally shooting a friend (this is exactly the type of "fumble" you're claiming they are saying should be excised) can also be connected back to in game causation?Emphasis Mine: This is the first time I've seen you interpret what they are saying correctly...Also I disagree with your assumption that a nat 1 is not supposed to be a major screw up... it's supposed to be a major screw up.  I have cited in the rules where rolling a 1 is called out specifically as something bad happening.  Don't confuse "a major screw up" with "a major screw up caused by/highlighting the ineptitude of the characters".Or he understands his system, realizes that his system is open ended and is just stating his own preferences for how he applies it??I think without a common understanding of terms... discussion is made exponentially more difficult.</blockquote>

Verification