PDA

View Full Version : Fumbles



Aliquid
2017-05-18, 12:56 PM
I've always found the concept of "fumbles" in a RPG intriguing (as a player... not just as a DM)

It could add some slapstick humor to the game, or alternately add some dramatic tension with an "oh crap" moment. If you look at RPGs from a "storytelling" perspective, there are plenty of books or movies where things go completely sideways for the protagonist due to dumb luck, and then he/she overcomes things anyway.

BUT, from what I have seen from other posts, many people hate the concept of fumbles.

So, I have to ask: Is there a way to implement fumbles without pissing people off?

Things I have considered:

It has to be rare. So not just rolling a 1 on a d20.
A character with high skills should fumble far less often than one with low skills
The majority of fumbles should be amusing, but minor and easy to recover from

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 01:23 PM
No. There is not.

FAILURE is fine. Unexpected failures that are easy to recover from already exist-- they're called missing, and they can be described in as amusingly slapstick a fashion as fits the scene. If you miss a goblin, maybe it's because you slipped on some blood and almost stabbed yourself; if you miss a boss it's because he caught your sword in one hand. We all have stories about the luck of the dice letting a mook nearly murder the party, or a scary dude going down the first turn with a botched save.

Fumbles add NOTHING to that. All they do is punish the player for rolling. You already failed; there's no need to kick yourself in the face for it.

As for "oh crap" moments... Again, fumbles add nothing to that. Books get away with it because the narrative isn't random; the bad luck comes at a dramatically appropriate time. Fumbles do not. Complication/Hero Point type mechanics do a much better job of simulating that... if you need. Which you probably don't; players tend to do wonderful jobs of getting themselves into bad situations all by themselves, and it's so much better when it's your fault.

Tl;dr: Fumbles add nothing to the game that simply spicing up your descriptions doesn't already handle.

Red Fel
2017-05-18, 01:38 PM
Building on what Grod said: Fumbles, as opposed to mere failure, are generally bad. However, there are contexts in which they may be appropriate.

For example, in an overly slapstick game where the outcomes are less important than the means, fumbles can be hysterical. I'm thinking a Toon-type game here.

Similarly, in a setting where a fumble doesn't mean "failure plus punishment" but rather "unintended consequences," a fumble could be very interesting. For example, in In Nomine, rolling three 1s is "divine intervention," while rolling three 6s is "infernal intervention" - which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on who your boss is. The kind of mechanic that allows the DM to do something other than "You fail, and also cut your foot off," creates more narrative fun. More options, not fewer.

Lastly, consider a game that allows you to take the hit in exchange for a future benefit. For something comparable, if not exactly on point, in FATE, you can choose to accept a compulsion - the DM mandating that you act in accordance with an aspect of your character - in exchange for a Fate point, which can be spent to your benefit later. Alternatively, you can spend a Fate point to resist it. To create something comparable, you can cause fumbles to represent a give-and-take of fortune, and anyone who fumbles receives a token good for something later on - or, alternatively, they can spend one of these tokens to erase the fumble. This turns a fumble from pure punishment into a choice, an opportunity - creating player agency instead of taking it.

Karl Aegis
2017-05-18, 02:03 PM
When you roll your pigs, if both pigs are in an upright position with one stacked on top of the other one the game immediately ends. You pack things up and go home. Nothing else is fair.

napoleon_in_rag
2017-05-18, 02:35 PM
So, I have to ask: Is there a way to implement fumbles without pissing people off?

Things I have considered:

It has to be rare. So not just rolling a 1 on a d20.
A character with high skills should fumble far less often than one with low skills
The majority of fumbles should be amusing, but minor and easy to recover from


I remember the AD&D 1e PHB had a picture of a mage tripping and accidentally throwing his dagger into a fighters back as an illustration why a 3 Dex was a bad thing. I also remember in one early edition (2e?) of the game, if you fired a ranged weapon into combat between two people and hit, you had rolled to see which one you hit. Not very fun and generally ignored.

Like others have said, this kind of mechanic can take the fun out of the game. But to meet your criteria, you could something like this for combat:

When a player rolls a 1 on a 20 when making an attack, they then have to roll a 2d6. That roll is modified for things like:

Ability modifier
Weapon Skill (+3 for expertise, +1 for proficiency, -1 for non proficiency)
Environment (-1 for fighting on loose footing, -3 for fighting on slippery ice, -5 for fighting blind)

Take the final number and compare it to this chart:

2 - Player hits a friend for full damage. If no friends in range, he hits himself.
3 - 4 - Player hits a friend for half damage. If no friends in range, he hits himself.
5 - 6 - Player drops weapon and slips (-1 AC, 1/2 movement next round).
7 - 8 - Player slips (-1 AC, 1/2 movement next round).
9+ - Automatic Miss.


That way the worse that could happen to a warrior with expertise in his weapon and a +3 in his ability is a slip. But a character with a -2 ability and no proficiency would be dangerous to be around. I would also make a similar chart for a critical hit to balance it out.

Keltest
2017-05-18, 02:41 PM
No. There is not.

FAILURE is fine. Unexpected failures that are easy to recover from already exist-- they're called missing, and they can be described in as amusingly slapstick a fashion as fits the scene. If you miss a goblin, maybe it's because you slipped on some blood and almost stabbed yourself; if you miss a boss it's because he caught your sword in one hand. We all have stories about the luck of the dice letting a mook nearly murder the party, or a scary dude going down the first turn with a botched save.

Fumbles add NOTHING to that. All they do is punish the player for rolling. You already failed; there's no need to kick yourself in the face for it.

As for "oh crap" moments... Again, fumbles add nothing to that. Books get away with it because the narrative isn't random; the bad luck comes at a dramatically appropriate time. Fumbles do not. Complication/Hero Point type mechanics do a much better job of simulating that... if you need. Which you probably don't; players tend to do wonderful jobs of getting themselves into bad situations all by themselves, and it's so much better when it's your fault.

Tl;dr: Fumbles add nothing to the game that simply spicing up your descriptions doesn't already handle.

This depends entirely on the tone of the game and the group. For example, "you missed your shot so badly that it flew over the fighter you were shooting at and hit the wizard in the back of their group." would be hilarious at my table. As would (and has been) "you slip on some mud and hit your buddy with your sword by mistake". And every 100 fumbles or so, "you slip on some mud and hit yourself with your sword."

kyoryu
2017-05-18, 02:46 PM
Add me to the "no, thanks" column.

Fumbles are, too often, part of the "incompetence porn" aspect of roleplaying, where pleasure is gained by laughing at the misdeeds of other PCs, and I have little use for that.

Fumbles don't happen nearly enough in actual life to be worth modeling, and they certainly rarely happen in fiction with any regularity. So I have a hard time justifying their addition.

The only time that they do occur is usually when there's an established character trait, which can be handled with an appropriate character widget. There's no need for a generalized rule.

Edit: If you're talking a game of Toon or something? Sure, why not. My response is aimed at mainline, action-adventure style games.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 02:52 PM
This depends entirely on the tone of the game and the group. For example, "you missed your shot so badly that it flew over the fighter you were shooting at and hit the wizard in the back of their group." would be hilarious at my table. As would (and has been) "you slip on some mud and hit your buddy with your sword by mistake". And every 100 fumbles or so, "you slip on some mud and hit yourself with your sword."
Even in such a context, I'd still argue that it's better and more fun to simply describe hilarious failures (that don't really have a mechanical effect) than it is to use set rules, be they simple "on a natural 1 you attack the wrong target" or dense weapon-specific fumble decks or tables.

Aliquid
2017-05-18, 03:05 PM
Fumbles add NOTHING to that. All they do is punish the player for rolling. You already failed; there's no need to kick yourself in the face for it.
I don't get the whole "punishment", or "kick in face" concept. Why is failing seen as such a horrible thing?


For example, in an overly slapstick game where the outcomes are less important than the means, fumbles can be hysterical. I'm thinking a Toon-type game here.I played a lot of Paranoia back in the day... so maybe that's why I see gaming like this too.


When you roll your pigs, if both pigs are in an upright position with one stacked on top of the other one the game immediately ends. You pack things up and go home. Nothing else is fair.I know exactly what you are talking about. Never seen it happen though.


When a player rolls a 1 on a 20 when making an attack, they then have to roll a 2d6. That roll is modified for things like:

Ability modifier
Weapon Skill (+3 for expertise, +1 for proficiency, -1 for non proficiency)
Environment (-1 for fighting on loose footing, -3 for fighting on slippery ice, -5 for fighting blind)

Take the final number and compare it to this chart:

2 - Player hits a friend for full damage. If no friends in range, he hits himself.
3 - 4 - Player hits a friend for half damage. If no friends in range, he hits himself.
5 - 6 - Player drops weapon and slips (-1 AC, 1/2 movement next round).
7 - 8 - Player slips (-1 AC, 1/2 movement next round).
9+ - Automatic Miss.
That's basically what I was thinking. If you roll a 1, you need to do an additional roll to see if it is a fumble, and as your skill level goes up, your ability to dodge the fumble goes up.


For example, "you missed your shot so badly that it flew over the fighter you were shooting at and hit the wizard in the back of their group." would be hilarious at my table.What I find interesting is that so many people who I see opposing fumbles in other threads have the mindset that fumbles are HORRIBLE and nobody should use them. I don't get the anger, rather than "meh, not my thing"


Add me to the "no, thanks" column.

Fumbles are, too often, part of the "incompetence porn" aspect of roleplaying, where pleasure is gained by laughing at the misdeeds of other PCs, and I have little use for that.I'm happy to laugh at my misdeeds too... but I guess it depends on if the other players are jerks about it or not.

Jay R
2017-05-18, 03:47 PM
Lots of people play with fumble rules and enjoy it.

Lots of people don't like fumble rules and don't play with them.

Other people are allowed to disagree with you, because that's the exact same statement as saying you are allowed to disagree with them.

People are different, and like different things.

veti
2017-05-18, 03:49 PM
Depends entirely on the group.

I'm fine with a reasonable fumble system. I enjoy a bit of slapstick. And the mortification of doing it to oneself is more than made up by the glee of seeing enemies do it to themselves.

But as this thread illustrates, some people start frothing at the mouth at the very mention of the idea. If you have any of those in your group, it's probably not worth the effort.

I would roll to confirm fumbles in the same way as criticals. That way, fumbling is automatically scaled to your skill and your opponent's AC, which seems fair to me. Then I'd have an open-ended roll for effects, with a wide area of "not too bad stuff" - -2 to AC, miss your next attack, minor damage to friendly target - but if you manage to explode your roll twice, then things start to get consequential. Weapon breakage or loss, temporary blindness, critting friendly targets, that sort of thing. The idea being to inject at least a moment of tension to every fumble.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-18, 03:49 PM
Put me in the - "no thanks" column. I generally don't like things which make the game super swingy - largely because I enjoy the tactical elements of RPGs.

In addition to fumbles, I also don't like exploding dice (especially when they can also explode) or save or die abilities.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 04:16 PM
I don't get the whole "punishment", or "kick in face" concept. Why is failing seen as such a horrible thing?
Because that's literally what they are. A natural one is already a failure on two counts-- firstly because your total roll is probably too low (assuming you're facing something difficult enough to necessitate rolling at all), and secondly because a natural 1, at least in d20 games, is an automatic failure regardless of total. You've already failed; fumble rules exist for the sole purpose of making the failure worse. And usually embarrassing.


What I find interesting is that so many people who I see opposing fumbles in other threads have the mindset that fumbles are HORRIBLE and nobody should use them. I don't get the anger, rather than "meh, not my thing"
I've had them imposed on me too many times. It's a really common thing. Natural 1 fumbles in D&D, botches in White Wolf games, friggin fumble decks that mean I just crippled myself for a fight because the die came up wrong... I don't hate them in something like Toon or Paranoia, but I despise "serious" games where the dice show a "1" and the DM turns my calm and collected swordsman into a blithering incompetent.

Aliquid
2017-05-18, 05:05 PM
You've already failed; fumble rules exist for the sole purpose of making the failure worse. And usually embarrassing.I'm not saying this to be confrontational or anything... but so what? Back to my question, why is failing a horrible thing? I'm genuinely curious.

I might just be lucky that I have never played with a jerk DM though. So I'm going to put forward a theory.


A good game for me (and I think many people) is a mix of success and failure.
The ratio of those two things vary with different game styles
There are annoying players that throw a tantrum if the ratio isn't extremely skewed to the "success" side
There are jerk DMs who suck all fun out of a game by making the game extremely skewed to the "fail" side



Those "Jerk" DMs almost always enjoy "fumble" rules. Therefore the moment the word "fumble" is spoken, people immediately associate it with a DM who's sole purpose is to make the game hard and miserable for you. Even though that might not be the case.


I don't hate them in something like Toon or Paranoia, but I despise "serious" games where the dice show a "1" and the DM turns my calm and collected swordsman into a blithering incompetent.But that's why I started the thread by literally saying "It has to be rare. So not just rolling a 1 on a d20"

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-18, 05:27 PM
I'm not saying this to be confrontational or anything... but so what? Back to my question, why is failing a horrible thing? I'm genuinely curious.
As I keep saying, it's not the failure that bothers me, it's the humiliating failure. Humiliating, and usually woefully out-of-character. In a very real sense, at least for me, "you accidentally stab your buddy" is a loss of agency, in a way that "you miss" isn't. It's taking control of my character to do something that does not fit my view of things. That's why I support the descriptive option. If I'm playing Star-Lord, then I can describe my natural 1 making me look like a goof; if I'm playing Gamora, I can describe it as my enemy blocking like a badass.

(I mean, I tend to be on the "make it not the player's fault" school of description to begin with; I prefer to blame an external factor when things go wrong-- a sudden gust of wind blows your arrow off-course, the climbing line snaps, you didn't realize the guard was divorced until you asked about his wife, that sort of thing. I want to root for my characters, root for my players, not make them look like fools.)


Those "Jerk" DMs almost always enjoy "fumble" rules. Therefore the moment the word "fumble" is spoken, people immediately associate it with a DM who's sole purpose is to make the game hard and miserable for you. Even though that might not be the case.
I'd like to agree with that, and I think there's certainly an element. But I've had some otherwise-good GMs who still light up with malicious glee when it comes to botches and such, though.


But that's why I started the thread by literally saying "It has to be rare. So not just rolling a 1 on a d20"
If they must exist, I suggest treating them like Compels in Fate. The GM brings them in deliberately, at a time when it would be appropriate, and offers the player a metagame reward for doing so-- and the player has the option to pay a metagame currency to avoid it, if they really don't want.

NRSASD
2017-05-18, 06:02 PM
I personally like fumbles, but I grew up with them. We also use an expanded critical system, so it adds symmetry and provides a good incentive to have a backup weapon just in case something goes horribly, horribly wrong. We don't frame them as incompetence though, just as cripplingly bad luck striking all at once. Here's how we treat it.

On a natural 1
1: hit self
2: hit another target
3: drop weapon
4: break weapon
5: fall prone
6-20: miss

On a natural 20
1: Triple damage and DC 15 Con save, failure=death
2-3: Automatic called shot or triple damage
4-5: Triple damage
6-20: double damage

Aotrs Commander
2017-05-18, 06:07 PM
I - and my group - largely started and still continue to play to this day (thought less frequently), Rolemaster, so fumbles are pretty much a given.

After much experimentation, our current system as it pertains to D&D is if you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll on your FIRST attack that round (after that a 1 is just a miss), you roll a D20 to see how bad it is (low is bad - by which I mean bottem-end single digits; anything else is just a bad miss) and then the DM decides (arbitarily) what happens, based on what would be the most amusing (or least harmful) at the time. We tried other things, but unlike with Rolemaster, it just doesn't work. (Skills-wise we use 1 = -10 and 20 = 30, but they are neither automatic success nor failure.)

(This applies, of course, equally to the monsters.)



Thing is... You remember the fumbles.

You remember the fumbles for YEARS.

I could list off the fumbles that have happened in lists - many of them in Rolemaster - (the time the Middle-Earth party nearly all fell off a cliff, the Battle of the Fumbles, the time the party collectively fumbled one after another, the time the basic skeleton effectively inflicted damage above and beyond what it ever could have been expected onto the 5-7th level fighter, that time that one PC shot another PC with his shotgun because he made the kistake oif firing at a skeleton at close range, that really disturbing one whee, the second time I ran that adventure in the exact same place where hsitory repeated and the mage got shot in the back of the head by another PC with a gun (only thr second incident was accidental)...

I can only remember specifically a couple of the criticals over the years (especially in D&D) that were of particular note by comparison. (Like the time the necromancer carved a barbarian in twain with his scythe and made all that time carrying it around and not having a familair totally worth it...!)

Koo Rehtorb
2017-05-18, 06:07 PM
So, I have to ask: Is there a way to implement fumbles without pissing people off?

Frame them in a way that makes them bad luck, not incompetence.

Aliquid
2017-05-18, 06:24 PM
As I keep saying, it's not the failure that bothers me, it's the humiliating failure. Humiliating, and usually woefully out-of-character. [snip]
I want to root for my characters, root for my players, not make them look like fools.)

Frame them in a way that makes them bad luck, not incompetence.
Ok, now these comments are bringing more clarity to this for me. You are acting out your character the way your visualize him/her. Then the DM not only takes that control from you, but makes your character look the fool in the process.

What if it were a system where you had to have character "flaws", and the "fumbles" were vague, such as - "your flaw caused you to fail in a way that puts you in a disadvantage (of x) for your next turn". Then it is up to the player to decide what happened. Maybe the character's ego caused him to get cocky and leave himself open. Maybe the character's impatience caused her to forget to 'look before you leap'... etc. It is up to the player to decide how it pans out.

There could be a mix of fumbles. Some where it is due to the character's flaw(s), and some fumbles would be due to environmental factors out of their control (bad luck)



I'd like to agree with that, and I think there's certainly an element. But I've had some otherwise-good GMs who still light up with malicious glee when it comes to botches and such, though.As long as the GM was as amused with NPC botches, it wouldn't really bother me. But if it is focused on the PCs, then it is personal.



If they must exist, I suggest treating them like Compels in Fate. The GM brings them in deliberately, at a time when it would be appropriate, and offers the player a metagame reward for doing so-- and the player has the option to pay a metagame currency to avoid it, if they really don't want.I've only played with metagame currency a couple of times, and I'm still trying to decide if I like the concept or not. But yes, that is definitely a viable alternative.

OldTrees1
2017-05-18, 06:36 PM
No. There is not.

FAILURE is fine. Unexpected failures that are easy to recover from already exist-- they're called missing, and they can be described in as amusingly slapstick a fashion as fits the scene. If you miss a goblin, maybe it's because you slipped on some blood and almost stabbed yourself; if you miss a boss it's because he caught your sword in one hand. We all have stories about the luck of the dice letting a mook nearly murder the party, or a scary dude going down the first turn with a botched save.

Fumbles add NOTHING to that. All they do is punish the player for rolling. You already failed; there's no need to kick yourself in the face for it.

As for "oh crap" moments... Again, fumbles add nothing to that. Books get away with it because the narrative isn't random; the bad luck comes at a dramatically appropriate time. Fumbles do not. Complication/Hero Point type mechanics do a much better job of simulating that... if you need. Which you probably don't; players tend to do wonderful jobs of getting themselves into bad situations all by themselves, and it's so much better when it's your fault.

Tl;dr: Fumbles add nothing to the game that simply spicing up your descriptions doesn't already handle.

Interesting, let's test that theory.

I ran a campaign once where skill checks that were both failures and rolled a nat 1 (back then I did not factor in for frequency of rolls) would result in me thinking of a temporary effect on the spot. The effects were meant to be of negligible impact on balance, but of non negligible enjoyment. I was using the dice to randomize & limit when I came up with an idea as well as to ties the idea to some context. How would you convert this away from a fumble mechanic?

Concrete example: In the first session one PC rolled 2 nat 1 failures in a row while on watch. This inspired me to have them temporarily hallucinate 6 talking birds. They liked this enough that it became a permanent effect.

Honestly I liked the few outcomes enough that I designed an inverted bellcurve(1s and 20s were most frequent) so I could ask to use that next time I was playing a PC.


That said: I am a solid "no thanks" for attack or spellcasting fumbles.

FreddyNoNose
2017-05-18, 06:37 PM
crits and fumbles don't help the players in the long run. That being said, if you want to allow them in your game that is great.

Keltest
2017-05-18, 08:02 PM
Even in such a context, I'd still argue that it's better and more fun to simply describe hilarious failures (that don't really have a mechanical effect) than it is to use set rules, be they simple "on a natural 1 you attack the wrong target" or dense weapon-specific fumble decks or tables.

And you would be wrong, at least as pertains to my group.

Knaight
2017-05-19, 03:34 AM
I've seen them work, but never in D&D - and even then, the golden standard is the glitch system for Shadowrun, which can involve fumbles but also involves succeeding with flaws (an example is getting some stuff caught on a barbed wire fence you're hopping).

Glorthindel
2017-05-19, 05:07 AM
My opinion is they are a valid counterbalance to criticals. That said, I agree that it is preferable to simulate them as bad luck instead of incompetance.

However, I am firmly in support of hitting team-mates in the particular example of shooting into melee; it is a risky action, since you cannot account for movement the combatants have to make as part of their fight. So even if your aim is good, you can't account for your companion (who is likely back to you, so unaware of the incoming arrow/bullet) stepping in front of the shot while doing so to avoid a sword swing. If this mechanic is covered by the rules, thats fine, but if not, I'm happy to allow fumbles to handle the possibility.

ExLibrisMortis
2017-05-19, 05:44 AM
My opinion is they are a valid counterbalance to criticals.
I really dislike this argument. Fumbles have nothing to do with balancing criticals. PC criticals are already balanced by monster criticals. Fumbles are a separate and - as Grod says - unneeded houserule.

Put me in the "no, never" camp. For me, taking a critical hit is enough of a 'bad luck' mechanic.

Random Sanity
2017-05-19, 06:00 AM
But that's why I started the thread by literally saying "It has to be rare. So not just rolling a 1 on a d20"


The thing is, for a fumble effect to be rare enough to avoid shattering suspension of disbelief, that "safety system" you keep advocating would have to be several rolls deep to represent the actual odds of a professional (often a superhumanly-good one) screwing up to that degree. At which point your fail table comes up so rarely you're wasting your time writing it in the first place.

Fumble systems add complexity where it's completely unneeded, slowing down play for the sole purpose of humiliating the PCs with outcomes that would never happen outside of a Three Stooges film. There's simply no such thing as a well-implemented fumble mechanic.

Red Fel
2017-05-19, 09:32 AM
I'm not saying this to be confrontational or anything... but so what? Back to my question, why is failing a horrible thing? I'm genuinely curious.

As others have noted, fumbles aren't just failure. They're failure plus punishment.

Going over to D&D 3.5 as an illustration, because fumble rules in that game are fairly well-known and fairly egregious, consider this. If a Wizard is attempting to manipulate cosmic energies to warp the nature of reality as we know it, and he rolls a one, he fails. There are not fumble rules for spells. Conversely, if a level 20 Fighter attacks his enemy, he is four times more likely than a level 1 Fighter to chop his own leg off.

That's because fumble rules, at least in 3.5 (which is what we're using for illustration) trigger on attack rolls, which once more penalizes martials over casters. And because they trigger off of each roll, a level 20 Fighter - whose iteratives give him four attacks - has four chances to fumble, as opposed to a level 1 Fighter, who only has one attack and thus one chance. Because fumbling triggers on a natural 1, it is unaffected by level of training. Thus, on a given attack, a level 20 Fighter is just as likely to fumble as a level 1 Fighter, despite the gulf between them, and on a full attack, has four chances to do so.

How I've heard it expressed is this: Take 100 martials (e.g. Fighters), place them in front of 100 training dummies, and have them full attack every round for one hour. If, at the end of that time, any of those martials are dead, your fumble rules are crap. Why? Because nobody gets killed by a training dummy.

And that's the problem. It's totally fine to fail. That's what the dice are there for. That's what a natural 1 reflects. Failure is part of the system.

The problem is (1) fumble rules penalize certain characters over others (i.e. martials vs. casters), (2) they fail to reflect levels of training or skill, and (3) they can result in a person dying from a training dummy.

Even when you set aside the "makes you look foolish" argument, it's just a bad, unfair, illogical, punitive mechanic.

As for the argument of "counterbalance to criticals," let's actually look at that. What is a critical? A critical is a damage multiplier. In other words, the effect of a critical is the same as you performing your attack a second time (or third time, with a 3x multiplier). What is the counterbalance to, numerically, receiving an extra attack? Well, that would be losing an attack. Which is what a natural 1 already does - it's a miss. You missed, you lost your attack. The counterbalance is already there. How is "Oh, and also you stab yourself," a counterbalance?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-05-19, 09:37 AM
As for the argument of "counterbalance to criticals," let's actually look at that. What is a critical? A critical is a damage multiplier. In other words, the effect of a critical is the same as you performing your attack a second time (or third time, with a 3x multiplier). What is the counterbalance to, numerically, receiving an extra attack? Well, that would be losing an attack. Which is what a natural 1 already does - it's a miss. You missed, you lost your attack. The counterbalance is already there. How is "Oh, and also you stab yourself," a counterbalance?

I'm not particularly invested in fumble mechanics but I don't think this follows.

If a critical is getting you an extra attack then the counterbalance would be losing an extra attack. So this attack misses, and you can't make your next attack. Which I think is reasonable if that's how you want to go about things? You're off balance and have to spend an attack on recovering your positioning.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-19, 09:44 AM
I'm not particularly invested in fumble mechanics but I don't think this follows.

If a critical is getting you an extra attack then the counterbalance would be losing an extra attack. So this attack misses, and you can't make your next attack. Which I think is reasonable if that's how you want to go about things? You're off balance and have to spend an attack on recovering your positioning.

That would not be super terrible. But it still adds extra complexity to the system for no added depth of play - which is my general rule for adding any complexity.

napoleon_in_rag
2017-05-19, 09:57 AM
The thing is, for a fumble effect to be rare enough to avoid shattering suspension of disbelief, that "safety system" you keep advocating would have to be several rolls deep to represent the actual odds of a professional (often a superhumanly-good one) screwing up to that degree. At which point your fail table comes up so rarely you're wasting your time writing it in the first place.

This idea that professionals never get in accidents is just wrong. Every NASCAR driver is a far better driver than you or me will ever be. But they get in accidents all the time. They just do it at 200 mph, not while trying to parallel park in a tight spot.

The OP suggested that a fumble system has to be modified by skill. For an accurate system, I think a fumble system would have to take in account:

Skill of person (Danica Patrick or someone who has never driven before?)
Difficulty of Maneuver/ Feat (Straight road or windy road?)
Condition of Person (Are they drunk or sober?)
Condition of Equipment (Do the brakes work?)
Condition of Environment (Is it snowing?)

That way Danica Patrick driving the speed limit on a sunny day would have no chance of an accident but a drunk Danica Patrick driving too fast on a windy road in a snow storm with no brakes would almost definitely get in accident.


Fumble systems add complexity where it's completely unneeded, slowing down play for the sole purpose of humiliating the PCs with outcomes that would never happen outside of a Three Stooges film. There's simply no such thing as a well-implemented fumble mechanic.

I think you can make a good "critical fail" mechanic. If the above factors are added to the mix, it will make the game more realistic, creating a bigger consequence for trying something you are not proficient in or when conditions are wrong. But I agree with you that such a system will likely add too much complexity to the game. I think it's better left out.

If the sole purpose of a fumble system is to humiliate the players, it definitely should not be included.

kyoryu
2017-05-19, 10:37 AM
While catastrophic "fumbles" may happen in reality or fiction (depending on which you're emulating), they both happen with such low frequency that I see little value in having rules for them.

Satinavian
2017-05-19, 10:52 AM
As others have noted, fumbles aren't just failure. They're failure plus punishment.

Going over to D&D 3.5 as an illustration, because fumble rules in that game are fairly well-known and fairly egregious, consider this. If a Wizard is attempting to manipulate cosmic energies to warp the nature of reality as we know it, and he rolls a one, he fails. There are not fumble rules for spells. Conversely, if a level 20 Fighter attacks his enemy, he is four times more likely than a level 1 Fighter to chop his own leg off.

That's because fumble rules, at least in 3.5 (which is what we're using for illustration) trigger on attack rolls, which once more penalizes martials over casters. And because they trigger off of each roll, a level 20 Fighter - whose iteratives give him four attacks - has four chances to fumble, as opposed to a level 1 Fighter, who only has one attack and thus one chance. Because fumbling triggers on a natural 1, it is unaffected by level of training. Thus, on a given attack, a level 20 Fighter is just as likely to fumble as a level 1 Fighter, despite the gulf between them, and on a full attack, has four chances to do so.Yes. But that is very D&D specific.

My main system uses fumble rules where the fumble chance for every action (attack, spell casting, skill use) is roughly 0.71%, the chance for a critical fumble is lower at 0.0125% as in one roll in 8000. Only those critical fumbles produce those "hilarious" results and most PCs never get to see a single one in their whole carreer, normal fumbles are just a worse kind of failure, slightly worsening the situation.

In addition, for skills there is some "take 10" equivalent, which removes even this less-than-one-percent chance for all routine tasks, for attacks there is an additional rule that works similar to an confirmation roll, further lowering the chance and making more experienced combatants better at not fumbling (also the system does not give out additional attaks for higher level). There are also two mechanisms that can increase fumble chance : using equippment you are not proficient with and a drawback from character customizing options.


I am still not a fan of fumbles, but i can live with that. Actually i can live with several fumble rulesets of modern systems. And others i can appreciate, even if they are not to my taste they often work well at achieving what the system wants (e.g. more randomness or simulating safe vs.risky strategies (having maneuvers/skill options reducing increasing fumble chance for an additional benefit) or working it into some luck/destiny point/drama point system )

Rule designers have learned from early D&D mistakes. As they did in many other areas.

Trebloc
2017-05-19, 11:34 AM
I would consider a fumbles rule where it penalized all classes equally. So, a Fighter full attacking has an equal chance to fumble as a Barbarian single attacking who has an equal chance to fumble as a Wizard casting Fireball who has an equal chance to fumble as a Cleric casting Heal. I mean, if you want fumbles for their "comedy value", then why is that only reserved for the lowly martial classes? Lets see the wizard drop the fireball at his own feet or see the cleric botch a Heal spell. That's funny too, right?

kyoryu
2017-05-19, 11:35 AM
My main system uses fumble rules where the fumble chance for every action (attack, spell casting, skill use) is roughly 0.71%, the chance for a critical fumble is lower at 0.0125% as in one roll in 8000. Only those critical fumbles produce those "hilarious" results and most PCs never get to see a single one in their whole carreer, normal fumbles are just a worse kind of failure, slightly worsening the situation.

If a rule comes up that infrequently, I see little value in keeping it, especially for something like critical fumbles, where the result is making the PCs look dumb.

Aliquid
2017-05-19, 11:35 AM
I really dislike this argument. Fumbles have nothing to do with balancing criticals. PC criticals are already balanced by monster criticals.It balances the "fail/success" ratio in the game. It balances the characters, so they have flaws too.


The thing is, for a fumble effect to be rare enough to avoid shattering suspension of disbelief, that "safety system" you keep advocating would have to be several rolls deepYou have some preconceived ideas of what a fumble are that you don't seem to be willing to challenge. A fumble doesn't have to be "you stab yourself". It might just be "you have a 2 point penalty on your next roll"... and for someone at a high level, a 2 point penalty isn't that big of a deal... but it makes a huge difference to a level 1 character.


Fumble systems add complexity where it's completely unneeded, slowing down play for the sole purpose of humiliating the PCs with outcomes that would never happen outside of a Three Stooges film. There's simply no such thing as a well-implemented fumble mechanic.Again, preconceived ideas. Nobody in this thread is advocating for catastrophic killing of your fellow PCs when you roll a 1.


As others have noted, fumbles aren't just failure. They're failure plus punishment.Clearly I have a different philosophy of play style. As a player, I have never seen an unfortunate event as a punishment. It is just another obstacle to overcome, which makes your successes that much more sweet.


Going over to D&D 3.5 as an illustration, because fumble rules in that game are fairly well-known and fairly egregious, consider this.No. Stop right there. Pointing out that some fumble systems are horribly implemented doesn't add to the discussion. That's a given, and has already been acknowledged.


The problem is (1) fumble rules penalize certain characters over others (i.e. martials vs. casters), (2) they fail to reflect levels of training or skill, and (3) they can result in a person dying from a training dummy.How about we rephrase this into something constructive:
A good fumble system would
(1) be consistently applied across all character types,
(2) Scale with training and skill (i.e. the better you are, the less you fumble)
(3) Not result in you hurting yourself

All of which are perfectly possible to implement.


How is "Oh, and also you stab yourself," a counterbalance?Again with these preconceived notions of what a fumble MUST be. Where is this rule written that all fumble systems will result in people stabbing themselves?


If a critical is getting you an extra attack then the counterbalance would be losing an extra attack. So this attack misses, and you can't make your next attack. Which I think is reasonable if that's how you want to go about things? You're off balance and have to spend an attack on recovering your positioning.

That would not be super terrible. But it still adds extra complexity to the system for no added depth of play - which is my general rule for adding any complexity.I think it adds the depth of play. Adds some tension and makes things more exciting. Maybe some suspense can even be added by having to wait until your next turn to roll and find out how quickly you recover.


This idea that professionals never get in accidents is just wrong. Every NASCAR driver is a far better driver than you or me will ever be. But they get in accidents all the time. They just do it at 200 mph, not while trying to parallel park in a tight spot.
[snip]
I think you can make a good "critical fail" mechanic. If the above factors are added to the mix, it will make the game more realistic, creating a bigger consequence for trying something you are not proficient in or when conditions are wrong. But I agree with you that such a system will likely add too much complexity to the game. I think it's better left out.That's a really good point. The impact of the fumble should be correlated with how challenging the task is.


While catastrophic "fumbles" may happen in reality or fiction (depending on which you're emulating), they both happen with such low frequency that I see little value in having rules for them.Then make sure fumbles are designed so that they aren't catastrophic in nature.

ExLibrisMortis
2017-05-19, 12:52 PM
It balances the "fail/success" ratio in the game. It balances the characters, so they have flaws too.
No, it doesn't. Critical hits are symmetrical between monsters and players, and critical hits are failures, too. A character fails to cover their liver? Critical hit taken, ouch, failure. No fumbles required.

denthor
2017-05-19, 01:19 PM
Ok I like fumbles: my group makes it like a critical hit you need a backup roll that also fumbles in order to trigger.

Pros:

Fun times
Yes they can help as well as hurt snicker hit the mage in the back. I run the wizard currently.

Cons:

More rolls
Longer fights more time spent no movement on plot.
Can become tiresome.

Neutral :

It must be for both sides.

Karl Aegis
2017-05-19, 01:23 PM
See, you're trying to use dice to get silly results. That doesn't work. You have to roll the pigs. Or draw cards out of a deck. Or something else that isn't rolling dice. Something that doesn't take time away from playing the actual game. Because, generally speaking, you're playing a game to play a game. Generally speaking, you play a roleplaying game to play a role within a story within a game. If something happens that doesn't lead to anything interesting the story has not been advanced and the game has stopped being played. If I roll to jump up to a higher ledge on the other side of a river and I fail I expect something to happen. "I try again" is not something happening. "You take some minor damage that will not ever matter and are able to try again" is not something happening. "You get to the other side of the river" and "you fail to reach the ledge on the other side of the river and are swept downstream where you are rescued by a villager in an unknown village" are things happening. I want those kinds of results.

The Turn Press System of later Shin Megami Tensei games is a system that includes fumbles and critical hits that really emphasize how the game is supposed to be played. If you do something stupid, you lose turns and your opponent gains pseudo-turns. If you leave an opening and your enemy exploits it, your enemy gains turns and pseudo-turns. Bad decisions are punished. Good decisions are rewarded. That's how the game works. Which brings me to the core issue of fumble systems:

If something bad happens regardless of the decision you make why bother making decisions at all?

FreddyNoNose
2017-05-19, 02:13 PM
There was a post in the LA Times 20 some years ago about drive by shootings. There was a high percentage of times when the someone got shot in the car by the shooter who as in the same car. Not to mention by standers getting hit. Those could all be considered fumbles.

Aliquid
2017-05-19, 02:17 PM
See, you're trying to use dice to get silly results. That doesn't work. You have to roll the pigs. Or draw cards out of a deck. Or something else that isn't rolling dice. Something that doesn't take time away from playing the actual game. Because, generally speaking, you're playing a game to play a game. Generally speaking, you play a roleplaying game to play a role within a story within a game. If something happens that doesn't lead to anything interesting the story has not been advanced and the game has stopped being played. If I roll to jump up to a higher ledge on the other side of a river and I fail I expect something to happen. "I try again" is not something happening. "You take some minor damage that will not ever matter and are able to try again" is not something happening. "You get to the other side of the river" and "you fail to reach the ledge on the other side of the river and are swept downstream where you are rescued by a villager in an unknown village" are things happening. I want those kinds of results.

The Turn Press System of later Shin Megami Tensei games is a system that includes fumbles and critical hits that really emphasize how the game is supposed to be played. If you do something stupid, you lose turns and your opponent gains pseudo-turns. If you leave an opening and your enemy exploits it, your enemy gains turns and pseudo-turns. Bad decisions are punished. Good decisions are rewarded. That's how the game works. Which brings me to the core issue of fumble systems:

If something bad happens regardless of the decision you make why bother making decisions at all?But it isn't just silly results. It is dramatic results, it is interesting results, it is an unexpected twist.

Lets use your example. You failed = you didn't make it and fell in the river. You fumbled = not only did you fall in the river, but you broke a big chunk of the ledge off in the process... now it is that much harder for the rest of the team to get across.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-19, 02:27 PM
But it isn't just silly results. It is dramatic results, it is interesting results, it is an unexpected twist.

Lets use your example. You failed = you didn't make it and fell in the river. You fumbled = not only did you fall in the river, but you broke a big chunk of the ledge off in the process... now it is that much harder for the rest of the team to get across.

That's not an interesting result, that's just a groan-worthy annoying result.

Karl Aegis
2017-05-19, 02:35 PM
But it isn't just silly results. It is dramatic results, it is interesting results, it is an unexpected twist.

Lets use your example. You failed = you didn't make it and fell in the river. You fumbled = not only did you fall in the river, but you broke a big chunk of the ledge off in the process... now it is that much harder for the rest of the team to get across.

So... Now what? Try again and hope you do better or something? It really looks like the task is now impossible for that character and no new options have been presented. Essentially, that character can no longer participate in the story. Is that really a good thing?

Nupo
2017-05-19, 02:48 PM
As you can see fumble rules aren't very popular on this forum. I suspect many that don't like them have been the victim of badly designed systems, or just take the game a little too seriously. We have always used fumble rules, and everyone in our group likes them. When a natural one is rolled a DC 15 reflex save is rolled. Suscess means no fumble. Failure is a fumble, and fumbles are never catastrophic. None of this crazy cut your own head off stuff. Simple things like dazed for one round.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-19, 03:04 PM
It balances the "fail/success" ratio in the game. It balances the characters, so they have flaws too.
As we've been repeatedly saying, "fumbles" and "failure" are not the same thing. A fumble isn't "you failed," it's "you failed so badly something bad happens to you." It's an arbitrary penalty, a slap in the face layered on top of whatever


I think it adds the depth of play. Adds some tension and makes things more exciting. Maybe some suspense can even be added by having to wait until your next turn to roll and find out how quickly you recover.
Ehh... not really. It's not adding much to the depth because it's a not a choice, it's a probabilistic consequence of rolling a lot. If the system had an option like "you can choose to roll the task twice, but if you still fail you fumble," that's adding depth-- it's a choice, an option to alter the risk/reward tradeoff.

(And, as noted, there should already be an interested consequence to failure, because otherwise there's no point in asking for a roll.)


Then make sure fumbles are designed so that they aren't catastrophic in nature.
This, though, starts to circle back around to a broader problem you see most often with traps. Minor attrition isn't really an exciting outcome, but major damage as a result of a single bad roll or "gotcha" moment isn't really fun either. It's very, very difficult to strike that balance: if the penalty is low enough to not be upsetting, the element might not exist at all, while if the penalty is high enough to be significant, the element will probably feel unfair and unfun.

For traps, the solution is to design the encounter around them-- make it clear that they exist, so it's not a matter of "whoops, I opened the door and died," and make finding and bypassing them an active puzzle, so that it's not a matter of "whoops, I rolled low on Search and died." For fumbles... like I said, I think the solution is to make it an active risk/reward choice, rather than a passive chance. Get-a-bonus-but-potentially-fumble, choose-to-succeed-anyway-with-a-cost, take-a-hero-point-or-pay-to-avoid-it, that sort of thing.

Aliquid
2017-05-19, 03:54 PM
So... Now what? Try again and hope you do better or something? It really looks like the task is now impossible for that character and no new options have been presented. Essentially, that character can no longer participate in the story. Is that really a good thing?The players need to present the options.
The remaining players on land will now need to find a way to fish the guy out of the water, and then they will need to look for a different route to get to the other side.

Aliquid
2017-05-19, 04:06 PM
Ehh... not really. It's not adding much to the depth because it's a not a choice, it's a probabilistic consequence of rolling a lot. If the system had an option like "you can choose to roll the task twice, but if you still fail you fumble," that's adding depth-- it's a choice, an option to alter the risk/reward tradeoff.Since when does your success/failure rate in a typical RPG a matter of choice? Of course it isn't a choice if you fail or not, otherwise most players would choose to succeed at everything. I'm failing to see why this keeps coming back to a lack of choice... we are talking about die rolls here.


This, though, starts to circle back around to a broader problem you see most often with traps. Minor attrition isn't really an exciting outcome, but major damage as a result of a single bad roll or "gotcha" moment isn't really fun either. It's very, very difficult to strike that balance: if the penalty is low enough to not be upsetting, the element might not exist at all, while if the penalty is high enough to be significant, the element will probably feel unfair and unfun.As someone who grew up on OD&D... I know this story well. Save or die on something that you had no chance of foreseeing really sucked. Maybe having my characters repeatedly destroyed in unfair OD&D scenarios built up a tolerance for such things, and as such a fumble seems utterly trivial to me.

Red Fel
2017-05-19, 04:29 PM
It balances the "fail/success" ratio in the game. It balances the characters, so they have flaws too.

As others have mentioned, there's a difference between "fumble" and "failure."


You have some preconceived ideas of what a fumble are that you don't seem to be willing to challenge. A fumble doesn't have to be "you stab yourself". It might just be "you have a 2 point penalty on your next roll"... and for someone at a high level, a 2 point penalty isn't that big of a deal... but it makes a huge difference to a level 1 character.

I have some illustrations of a fumble with which you disagree. A fumble doesn't have to be "you stab yourself." But that's an illustration - a fumble, as opposed to a failure - means "You fail, and also X happens." It could be, "You stab yourself," it could be, "You drop your weapon," it could be, "You ruin your chance to try again later." I was using one illustration, because listing every possible permutation of fumbling would take too long.


Again, preconceived ideas. Nobody in this thread is advocating for catastrophic killing of your fellow PCs when you roll a 1.

The line you quote doesn't mention catastrophic killing of PCs. It mentions Three Stooges-style antics.


Clearly I have a different philosophy of play style. As a player, I have never seen an unfortunate event as a punishment. It is just another obstacle to overcome, which makes your successes that much more sweet.

Failing to overcome an obstacle isn't an obstacle in and of itself. Being punished for failing to overcome an obstacle, likewise, isn't an obstacle.

If you, in real life, attempted to complete an obstacle course, and failed to do so, your failure isn't an obstacle to overcome. The obstacle course is full of those obstacles. Your failure is the big red NO.


No. Stop right there. Pointing out that some fumble systems are horribly implemented doesn't add to the discussion. That's a given, and has already been acknowledged.

Actually, as you show below, it does - by looking at what doesn't work, we can deduce what remains, and determine what, from that, might work.

So, you know, let's paraphrase a Sherlock quote.


How about we rephrase this into something constructive:
A good fumble system would
(1) be consistently applied across all character types,
(2) Scale with training and skill (i.e. the better you are, the less you fumble)
(3) Not result in you hurting yourself

All of which are perfectly possible to implement.

Agreed.

Now, setting aside points 1 and 2 - which I think are straightforward enough to implement, and make a lot of sense - and going straight to point 3: What kind of fumble counts as "not hurting yourself?" Are we talking physical harm only? Major setbacks? Minor setbacks? Traumatic if physically harmless experiences? At what point have we circled back around to mere "failures" as opposed to "fumbles?"


Again with these preconceived notions of what a fumble MUST be. Where is this rule written that all fumble systems will result in people stabbing themselves?

Illustrations are admitted for illustrative purposes only.


I think it adds the depth of play. Adds some tension and makes things more exciting. Maybe some suspense can even be added by having to wait until your next turn to roll and find out how quickly you recover.

The dice already do that. They give a chance of success or failure at a task. Adding extraneous details creates the perception of an arbitrary DM.

For example, let's say we're using a system where fumbles apply to skill checks, and I'm rolling my architecture skill to bolster the entrance to a cave so that it doesn't collapse on the party. If I fail, in my mind is the possibility that the entrance will collapse. So I know what I'm getting into.

Let's say instead I'm attacking a goblin with my mace. If I fail, nowhere in my mind is the possibility that my mace flies out of my hands, smashes into a nearby rock, and causes the cave entrance to collapse. That wasn't in my mind as a possibility; it comes out of nowhere. It feels like the DM spontaneously announcing, "Suddenly, you are attacked by Orcus."

People suffer as a result of dice rolls all the time. That's the tension and excitement you describe. But when your own die roll goes and does something completely unpredictable or out of nowhere, it disrupts immersion. It doesn't flow logically. That's not adding tension or excitement, it's arbitrary.

Not all fumbles are arbitrary. But the mechanic itself has that potential. And what you describe as an obstacle or opportunity for excitement, I describe as an arbitrary DM pulling things out of someplace unpleasant.


Then make sure fumbles are designed so that they aren't catastrophic in nature.

Please define "catastrophic." If I fumble and drop my shield, that's relatively minor. If I do it in front of a dragon about to belch flames, that's relatively catastrophic.

Look, here's a simple metric - possibly, the simplest. We are all here to play the game. But sometimes, an enemy does something that takes you out of the game. That's understandable. If, on the other hand, your actions take you out of the game - not your reactions, like a saving throw, but your active actions - then there's a problem. My character swinging a sword at an ogre should not result in me sitting out of combat, unless it's as a result of something the ogre did - not something I did.

I have said upthread that there are certain contexts, certain settings, and certain types of fumbles which can add to the game. But as it seems we've veered off into the "you fail and are punished" area of fumbles, I'm going to side with the majority.

Aotrs Commander
2017-05-19, 04:59 PM
I'm noting that fumbles applying just as equally to the monsters is not being mentioned...

Aliquid
2017-05-19, 05:31 PM
As others have mentioned, there's a difference between "fumble" and "failure."It is a matter of scale. Which I find there isn't enough of. The basic binary of "you succeed" or "you fail" is boring... but when you add "you succeed really well", or "you fail miserably". Then things get interesting.


I have some illustrations of a fumble with which you disagree. A fumble doesn't have to be "you stab yourself." But that's an illustration - a fumble, as opposed to a failure - means "You fail, and also X happens." It could be, "You stab yourself," it could be, "You drop your weapon," it could be, "You ruin your chance to try again later." I was using one illustration, because listing every possible permutation of fumbling would take too long.Yes, but you make fumbles look bad by taking bad examples to the extreme. There is a fallacy named after that.


Failing to overcome an obstacle isn't an obstacle in and of itself. Being punished for failing to overcome an obstacle, likewise, isn't an obstacle.Failing to overcome an obstacle can create new obstacles to overcome.


If you, in real life, attempted to complete an obstacle course, and failed to do so, your failure isn't an obstacle to overcome. The obstacle course is full of those obstacles. Your failure is the big red NO.If I were to try an obstacle course... I could fail to complete it, or I could fail and twist my ankle in the process. These are two completely realistic potential outcomes, and very different in the level of "fail".


Actually, as you show below, it does - by looking at what doesn't work, we can deduce what remains, and determine what, from that, might work.Yes, but I was getting tired of the negativity... which is why I decided to turn it into something constructive.


Now, setting aside points 1 and 2 - which I think are straightforward enough to implement, and make a lot of sense - and going straight to point 3: What kind of fumble counts as "not hurting yourself?" Are we talking physical harm only? Major setbacks? Minor setbacks? Traumatic if physically harmless experiences? At what point have we circled back around to mere "failures" as opposed to "fumbles?"I was talking about physical harm. To deal with the whole concept of people killing themselves fighting training dummies. Setbacks are fair game for me.


Illustrations are admitted for illustrative purposes only.Illustrating a point that has already been conceded to many times.


The dice already do that. They give a chance of success or failure at a task. Adding extraneous details creates the perception of an arbitrary DM.They don't show the extent of the success or failure, unless you start adding criticals and fumbles. Also, how is it the DM that is arbitrary... it is the dice that show the critical, not the DM.


Let's say instead I'm attacking a goblin with my mace. If I fail, nowhere in my mind is the possibility that my mace flies out of my hands, smashes into a nearby rock, and causes the cave entrance to collapse. That wasn't in my mind as a possibility; it comes out of nowhere. It feels like the DM spontaneously announcing, "Suddenly, you are attacked by Orcus."Sometimes crap like that happens in real life. Do you sit there and respond "this isn't fair!" and then refuse to accept that it happened?
Anyway, that can be addressed with some ground rules as to what the DM can and can't attribute the fumble to. Or even better, let the players decide the fumble, as long as it works within certain parameters.


People suffer as a result of dice rolls all the time. That's the tension and excitement you describe. But when your own die roll goes and does something completely unpredictable or out of nowhere, it disrupts immersion. It doesn't flow logically. That's not adding tension or excitement, it's arbitrary.it isn't arbitrary. You rolled the dice and you fumbled. If you call that arbitrary, then all failed rolls are arbitrary. Illogical? OK, I can see that, but only if the DM sucks. If you fail, and something bad happens as a direct result of that failure, that isn't arbitrary or illogical.


Not all fumbles are arbitrary. But the mechanic itself has that potential. And what you describe as an obstacle or opportunity for excitement, I describe as an arbitrary DM pulling things out of someplace unpleasant.I keep thinking on how lucky I am to not have had one of these DMs people keep talking about.


Please define "catastrophic." If I fumble and drop my shield, that's relatively minor. If I do it in front of a dragon about to belch flames, that's relatively catastrophic.A fumble shouldn't result in a life threatening result.


Look, here's a simple metric - possibly, the simplest. We are all here to play the game. But sometimes, an enemy does something that takes you out of the game. That's understandable. If, on the other hand, your actions take you out of the game - not your reactions, like a saving throw, but your active actions - then there's a problem. My character swinging a sword at an ogre should not result in me sitting out of combat, unless it's as a result of something the ogre did - not something I did.I can respect that. I don't feel the same way though.


I have said upthread that there are certain contexts, certain settings, and certain types of fumbles which can add to the game. But as it seems we've veered off into the "you fail and are punished" area of fumbles, I'm going to side with the majority.I'm not sure why it is veering in that direction. I'm certainly not trying to push it that way.

Tanarii
2017-05-19, 07:20 PM
How stupid or not stupid the entire concept of fumblers are depends at least partially on what you think resolution is for.

Do you use resolution to determine success/failure, and the outcomes and consequences are determined by the GM purely based on his interpretation of logical results of success / failure based on approach and intent?

Or do you want to use it to determine degrees of success / failure, and define the state of the world based on the results?

Fumbles make no sense if you look as checks as a binary yes/no system, with the what resulting purely from player or DM describing a logical result of the how and why. They are fine if checks determine the state of the world ... ie they can determine what directly. (edit: these are the two most extreme ends of a sliding scaled btw, not the only two options.)

Some people see state of the world checks as removing player agency. Others have no problem with them. (I personally prefer success/failure to state of the world, but I'm okay with it in some systems. WFRP for example.)

Pex
2017-05-19, 08:15 PM
I'm noting that fumbles applying just as equally to the monsters is not being mentioned...

It's impossible to be applied equally. Presuming the DM is not purposely designing a TPK for the lulz, which is NOT the same thing as a TPK can't happen due to bad luck, bad tactics, etc., the monsters are supposed to die anyway. A critical hit from the PC or a critical failure on behalf of the monster means it will happen roughly one round sooner than it would have without such an event.

Next, the PCs are on camera all the time. The monster is on camera for that one combat. That individual monster will not be rolling enough dice to get an equal percentage of the overall lifetime accumulation of fumbles. It may never fumble for that combat. The PC might not have fumbled the previous combat, but the Law Of Averages will catch up to him.

The DM has a plethora of monsters to play with. One dies the next one comes along the next combat. It has no meaning to him. The player has only his character. A fumble has more impact. The player will experience it again and again over the course of several combats.

Suppose it's round one against the BBEG. The buffed warror critical hits for huge amounts of damage the DM wasn't prepared for, enough to kill the BBEG right there or along with other party members in round one before the BBEG even gets his turn. Perhaps instead the spellcaster casts a save or lose, and the BBEG rolled a 1 on his save. Is the DM really going to let the party win on round 1? Some DMs will. Other DMs won't. In 5E preventing such a thing from happening is why the Big Boy Monsters have bloated hit points and Legendary saves. The BBEG or even just the boss monster of the particular combat won't fumble on round 1 because it would be "anti-climactic". The PC can.

Karl Aegis
2017-05-19, 10:52 PM
So you're standing in front of a dragon and:

Failure: Dragon barbeques you

Fumble: Something happens and then the dragon barbeques you

Do nothing: Dragon barbeques you

Success: Dragon may or may not barbeque you depending on how much you succeeded.


Notice that failure and doing nothing aren't much different than what happened with the fumble? Fumble didn't actually change anything. You just got barbequed.

Aliquid
2017-05-19, 11:48 PM
So you're standing in front of a dragon and:

Failure: Dragon barbeques you

Fumble: Something happens and then the dragon barbeques you

Do nothing: Dragon barbeques you

Success: Dragon may or may not barbeque you depending on how much you succeeded.


Notice that failure and doing nothing aren't much different than what happened with the fumble? Fumble didn't actually change anything. You just got barbequed.You got barbequed so spectacularly that stories of the event last for generations.

As mentioned by Aotrs Commander in an earlier post, those who enjoy fumbles, remember the spectacular fumbles. They still remember that fumble years later when all other memories of the campaign fade away.

THAT adds to the game.

Knaight
2017-05-20, 12:10 AM
So you're standing in front of a dragon and:

Failure: Dragon barbeques you

Fumble: Something happens and then the dragon barbeques you

Do nothing: Dragon barbeques you

Success: Dragon may or may not barbeque you depending on how much you succeeded.


Notice that failure and doing nothing aren't much different than what happened with the fumble? Fumble didn't actually change anything. You just got barbequed.

Alternately:

Fumble: You don't dodge the fire, get badly burnt, and manage to incinerate your shield in the process.
Failure: You don't dodge the fire, and get badly burnt.
Success: You dodge the fire.

There's room for fumble mechanics that add degrees of failure the same way that there's room for mechanics that add degrees of success, and while I've never seen it implemented well in D&D I have seen it work just fine elsewhere.

Vitruviansquid
2017-05-20, 12:35 AM
Fumbles aren't cool in a game where players expect to be cool badass heroes that do no wrong, but do do varying amounts of right. Fumbles work great in games where the players expect to be heroes who do their fair share of bumbling and messing up. But people prefer the former type of game, especially in D&D.

I think fumbling is a lot more palatable to players when fluffed as fairly bad luck. It's not that your fighter who was born with a (cute, baby-sized) sword in hand and who's fought a hundred battles did something really dumb and dropped his sword - rather, his sword actually bent from the strength of the blow, and he needs to spend a turn straightening it out.

veti
2017-05-20, 02:47 AM
It's impossible to be applied equally. Presuming the DM is not purposely designing a TPK for the lulz, which is NOT the same thing as a TPK can't happen due to bad luck, bad tactics, etc., the monsters are supposed to die anyway. A critical hit from the PC or a critical failure on behalf of the monster means it will happen roughly one round sooner than it would have without such an event.

Next, the PCs are on camera all the time. The monster is on camera for that one combat. That individual monster will not be rolling enough dice to get an equal percentage of the overall lifetime accumulation of fumbles. It may never fumble for that combat. The PC might not have fumbled the previous combat, but the Law Of Averages will catch up to him.

The DM has a plethora of monsters to play with. One dies the next one comes along the next combat. It has no meaning to him. The player has only his character. A fumble has more impact. The player will experience it again and again over the course of several combats.

I think that's probably the single most fallacy-filled argument I've ever seen on this board.

The individual monster may not roll enough dice to get a spectacular fumble, but there is generally more than one monster. All that matters is how many attack rolls are being made, in total. And on average, the monsters - all of them, in aggregate - will probably be making at least as many as the players. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but in the long run I would expect it to average out at least even. That means, they're going to fumble at least as much as the players. Probably more, in fact, because they'll (mostly) be less skilled and/or the PCs will have a higher AC.

And yes, of course it has a meaning when the bad guys do it. If a boss monster fumbles badly, it's freakin' hilarious. But even when mooks do it, it can make the combat significantly easier, and will definitely make it more memorable.


Suppose it's round one against the BBEG. The buffed warror critical hits for huge amounts of damage the DM wasn't prepared for, enough to kill the BBEG right there or along with other party members in round one before the BBEG even gets his turn. Perhaps instead the spellcaster casts a save or lose, and the BBEG rolled a 1 on his save. Is the DM really going to let the party win on round 1? Some DMs will. Other DMs won't. In 5E preventing such a thing from happening is why the Big Boy Monsters have bloated hit points and Legendary saves. The BBEG or even just the boss monster of the particular combat won't fumble on round 1 because it would be "anti-climactic". The PC can.

Now you're just talking about DM choices and playing styles. Is the DM going to let the players take down their boss on round 1? - as you say, depends entirely on the DM. Yes, a DM who wants a big cinematic fight may well decide to cheat to make it happen. What the heck do fumbles have to do with that?

Aotrs Commander
2017-05-20, 05:43 AM
Fumbles aren't cool in a game where players expect to be cool badass heroes that do no wrong, but do do varying amounts of right. But people prefer the former type of game, especially in D&D.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with that assessment. I have not, in the flesh (so to speak...) personally met anyone that wanted to do the former1, let alone complained about fumbles in the, what, twenty-seven years now? I've been playing. Granted, I have only been to an RPG convention twice and many of you may have met more players than I, perhaps (I am still playing with about three players over the course of those twenty-seven years), plus the general age demographic of my group has tended more towards both adult (I joined two of the aforementioned three players at about ten, when they were already working of a living) and/or people I have corrupted/trained up myself and/or engineer/technical chaps1... But I think it ingenuous to make a sweeping statement like that.

Some people may wish to play that way, but I doubt they are, in fact, a majority (which your statement implies); or even that D&D is has a particularly high proportion of same; aside from that, I would not care to hazard a guess to their proportions.



(In passing, let me also note the number of times I have actually permenently killed a PC in nearly twenty-seven years of DMing can still be counted on the fingers of one hand, and the times even PCs have been temporarily killed is about the same. Just to illustrate that despite my fumbles (and what a number of people here might read from that), I do not actively aim for PC death. As much as anything, it's a pain in my arse and my suspension of disbelief to keep crowbarring characters back into a game...!)




Now you're just talking about DM choices and playing styles. Is the DM going to let the players take down their boss on round 1? - as you say, depends entirely on the DM. Yes, a DM who wants a big cinematic fight may well decide to cheat to make it happen. What the heck do fumbles have to do with that?

Indeed. I DO have fumbles and I also (in D&D) use a template which ensures that the PCs can't one-shot the boss in round one (while not obviating any of their actions); especially important when your average party-size tends to be six to eight.

(In Rolemaster, there is no point having boss fights, I have found, since inevitably, all that happens is someone rolls opened-ended and kills it right away or criticals it to the point its just mop-up. This happened EVERY TIME until I stopped bothering!)



1I likely would have remembered, since for fairly obvious reasons, they would have been a poor fit with our groups.

2The pertinent corollation being that the older folk (in my experience) tend (as a general tendancy, by no means a rule) to be more relaxed and less... Propritiary? with their characters.

Aliquid
2017-05-20, 12:40 PM
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that assessment. I have not, in the flesh (so to speak...) personally met anyone that wanted to do the former1, let alone complained about fumbles in the, what, twenty-seven years now? Is this just a case of "Kids these days...." ?

Aotrs Commander
2017-05-20, 04:15 PM
Is this just a case of "Kids these days...." ?

Not particularly, just giving you my anecdotal evidence. I have not, in person, encountered anyone who conforms to what you were saying over an extended period of time, which leads me to believe that is is not as common as you implied it is. Or that the Midlands UK is some sort of strange anomoly or something, I couldn't say.

Edit: let me re-phrase that, given that I confused Aliquid for Vitruiansquid (sorry!):

I was not particularly intending that as an age-based statement (though I grant there is a possible corollating factor, hence my mention of the factors), I was more providing my anecdotal evidence that leads me it is not as common as Vitruviansquid implied it was.

(And there we go, in fact, that was very clearly (and pertinetnly) an Actual Fumble, as Bleakbane rolls a natural 1 on his "post argument to forum" check...!)




Fumbles aren't cool in a game where players expect to be cool badass heroes that do no wrong, but do do varying amounts of right. Fumbles work great in games where the players expect to be heroes who do their fair share of bumbling and messing up. But people prefer the former type of game, especially in D&D.


I will, in fairness, note that that "cool badass heroes that do no wrong, but do varying amounts of right" does, frankly, rub me entirely the wrong way as a concept (especially as phrased as in regard to "expectation,") as it (rightly or wrongly) immediately makes me think of protagonists of bad fanfiction; but that would have done so in ANY context, gaming or otherwise, regardless of fumbles and/or lack thereof. That exact phrasing implies that failure (never mind fumbles) is viewed as something that is unacceptable and that the [heroes/players/etc] feel entitled that they should always succeed. (That may not be what you meant, but that is how it came across to me.)

That is probably as much as I should reasonably politely say on that subject.



I will also note that, given as i was stated (starting at the age of eleven) as middle at least middle-aged and thus am now Old, so anything I say by default can be considered as lawn-defending/stick-shaking etc.

Aliquid
2017-05-20, 04:31 PM
Not particularly, just giving you my anecdotal evidence. I have not, in person, encountered anyone who conforms to what you were saying
[snip]
I will also note that, given as i was stated (starting at the age of eleven) as middle at least middle-aged and thus am now Old, so anything I say by default can be considered as lawn-defending/stick-shaking etc.
You are mistaking me for another poster. I'm pro fumble, and I started playing back in 1984... so my "kids these days" comment was based on the fact that it appears to be us old folks who aren't so sensitive about bad things happening to our characters.

Aliquid
2017-05-20, 04:35 PM
That's not an interesting result, that's just a groan-worthy annoying result.If you consider that groan worthy annoying, it sounds like the players in the games you have played are seriously pampered.

mephnick
2017-05-20, 04:39 PM
O
What if it were a system where you had to have character "flaws", and the "fumbles" were vague, such as - "your flaw caused you to fail in a way that puts you in a disadvantage (of x) for your next turn". Then it is up to the player to decide what happened. Maybe the character's ego caused him to get cocky and leave himself open. Maybe the character's impatience caused her to forget to 'look before you leap'... etc. .

If I had to use fumbles I'd do something like this. The barbarian player could pick a few thematic combat flaws that would be tied to 1's like "I miss but in my rage I swung wildly, leaving myself open." or "I swing so hard my axe buries itself in the earth and I can't use it til my next turn." Then it's not really out of character and it's not overly punishing. Could be fun if you're looking for a fumble system. it still has the problem of punishing martial characters much more than mages if we're talking D&D.

Aotrs Commander
2017-05-20, 04:39 PM
You are mistaking me for another poster. I'm pro fumble, and I started playing back in 1984... so my "kids these days" comment was based on the fact that it appears to be us old folks who aren't so sensitive about bad things happening to our characters.

My apologies, my dear sir/madam/small furry creature form Alpha Centauri! Ah - it was the similarity between your user names (both end in "quid.") I will edit to clarify! (I'm normally better than that, sorry!)

I... will tentatively concur that age might have some corollating aspect to it, yes.

(Also, as I observed in the edit, Actual Fumble just occurred outside a gaming context...!)

mephnick
2017-05-20, 04:47 PM
I... will tentatively concur that age might have some corollating aspect to it, yes.

That's possibly a good point. In the first couple editions of D&D (where most of us older folks started with TTRPGS) the focus was very much "Try and survive, but bad stuff will probably happen. Have a couple character sheets on standby." The last few editions of D&D more focused on "Take your special character through an epic story! If you die it's the DM's fault!" Maybe people used to older, harsher systems are more ok with fumbles because it was expected that bad things would happen to our characters, so when we hit and killed our mage friend with a fumble it was just another random death. Nowadays if characters die without some major narrative reason the players act like they've been violated and will never recover.

Aotrs Commander
2017-05-20, 04:49 PM
That's possibly a good point. In the first couple editions of D&D (where most of us older folks started with TTRPGS) the focus was very much "Try and survive, but bad stuff will probably happen. Have a couple character sheets on standby." The last few editions of D&D more focused on "Take your special character through an epic story! If you die it's the DM's fault!" Maybe people used to older, harsher systems are more ok with fumbles because it was expected that bad things would happen to our characters, so when we hit and killed our mage friend with a fumble it was just another random death. Nowadays if characters die without some major narrative reason the players act like they've been violated and will never recover.

Mmhm. I mean, the daft thing is I DON'T even aim to (permenantly) kill my PCs, but I'm fine with fumbles...!

(Mind you, I also perhaps commit that cardinal sin of not treating the random number generator as inviolable (which is why I roll behind the screen), to the PCs benefit more than their detriment!)

Hiro Protagonest
2017-05-20, 04:53 PM
There is nothing inherently more interesting about fumbles than a simple failure in D&D. It ranges from making combat take longer to increasing the number of times you have to write up new PCs, which, if you're making the rule for narrative reasons, is probably not desirable.

Now, if you want to talk about changing the rules of a failure on "do I hit?" from "no" to "yes, but!", that is highly GM-dependent but could be quite interesting.

I still don't think such rules have a place in D&D. Systems like FATE are built from the ground up for things like Aspect Compels which are designed very well for it.

Knaight
2017-05-20, 04:55 PM
You are mistaking me for another poster. I'm pro fumble, and I started playing back in 1984... so my "kids these days" comment was based on the fact that it appears to be us old folks who aren't so sensitive about bad things happening to our characters.

I don't buy it. Looking outside of D&D I can find several games where the core concept is things going hilariously wrong for comic characters with at least some degree of ineptness (Fiasco, Everyone is John) that are relatively recent. Then there's the bevy of games with concession mechanics, controlled risk, and other stuff where bad things happen, characters are expected to lose enough to make that a central rules feature, etc. (Apocalypse World, Fate). Those are a bit thin on the ground with older games, with Paranoia close to the sole example.

Aliquid
2017-05-20, 06:39 PM
My apologies, my dear sir/madam/small furry creature form Alpha Centauri! Ah - it was the similarity between your user names (both end in "quid.") I will edit to clarify! (I'm normally better than that, sorry!)

I... will tentatively concur that age might have some corollating aspect to it, yes.

(Also, as I observed in the edit, Actual Fumble just occurred outside a gaming context...!)Did you feel like the fumble was a punishment?


I don't buy it. Looking outside of D&D I can find several games where the core concept is things going hilariously wrong for comic characters with at least some degree of ineptness (Fiasco, Everyone is John) that are relatively recent. Then there's the bevy of games with concession mechanics, controlled risk, and other stuff where bad things happen, characters are expected to lose enough to make that a central rules feature, etc. (Apocalypse World, Fate). Those are a bit thin on the ground with older games, with Paranoia close to the sole example.Well I was just making a generalization based on the posts from this thread. Not a hard and fast rule.

Knaight
2017-05-20, 06:54 PM
Well I was just making a generalization based on the posts from this thread. Not a hard and fast rule.
Sure. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that the generalization holds, based on a wider (but hardly exhaustive) set of information - among other things very few people in this thread have actually revealed their age. I'd fit better in the pro-fumble camp, and I'm not even 25.

Arbane
2017-05-20, 07:13 PM
While catastrophic "fumbles" may happen in reality or fiction (depending on which you're emulating), they both happen with such low frequency that I see little value in having rules for them.

I can't think of any fictional hero this side of Inspector Clouseau who screws up as often as your average PC.


I'm afraid I have to disagree with that assessment. I have not, in the flesh (so to speak...) personally met anyone that wanted to do the former1, let alone complained about fumbles in the, what, twenty-seven years now? I've been playing. Granted, I have only been to an RPG convention twice and many of you may have met more players than I, perhaps (I am still playing with about three players over the course of those twenty-seven years), plus the general age demographic of my group has tended more towards both adult (I joined two of the aforementioned three players at about ten, when they were already working of a living) and/or people I have corrupted/trained up myself and/or engineer/technical chaps1... But I think it ingenuous to make a sweeping statement like that.

Some people may wish to play that way, but I doubt they are, in fact, a majority (which your statement implies); or even that D&D is has a particularly high proportion of same; aside from that, I would not care to hazard a guess to their proportions.




*Raises hand.

Unless the game is specifically Paranoia, Fiasco, or Kobolds Ate My Baby, I probably came here to play the Three Musketeers, not the Three Stooges.

Karl Aegis
2017-05-20, 07:50 PM
If you consider that groan worthy annoying, it sounds like the players in the games you have played are seriously pampered.

It's railroading the game into a dead-end. Unless you can read the DM's mind it sounds like there is no way to complete the story because all paths might lead to a dead-end. If you can read the DM's mind you get to "play" through the DM's novel on the One Rail to Victory. Fumbles as Railroading IS groan-worthy annoying.

Knaight
2017-05-20, 07:53 PM
It's railroading the game into a dead-end. Unless you can read the DM's mind it sounds like there is no way to complete the story because all paths might lead to a dead-end. If you can read the DM's mind you get to "play" through the DM's novel on the One Rail to Victory. Fumbles as Railroading IS groan-worthy annoying.

How is that railroading? It cuts off one option, that doesn't mean that there aren't a whole bunch of ways the game can go.

Aliquid
2017-05-20, 08:20 PM
It's railroading the game into a dead-end. Unless you can read the DM's mind it sounds like there is no way to complete the story because all paths might lead to a dead-end. If you can read the DM's mind you get to "play" through the DM's novel on the One Rail to Victory. Fumbles as Railroading IS groan-worthy annoying.

How is that railroading? It cuts off one option, that doesn't mean that there aren't a whole bunch of ways the game can go.
Exactly. One path lead to a dead end... one. That's a big difference from "every path". That's an overly dramatic interpretation of the events.

Deophaun
2017-05-20, 09:11 PM
What I don't understand is why fumbles need to be enforced at all. I've been in plenty of games where I or one of the players rolled a nat 1, and the situation was so ridiculous anyway that we narrated a fumble into the roll. There was no table or rule consulted, the GM didn't hand down an edict saying we sliced off our foot, but we volunteered that we accidentally sliced through the rope holding the hatch for the grain elevator closed and are now buried under a ton of wheat.

The lesson: If your players find fumbles entertaining, don't stand in their way. If your players don't find fumbles entertaining, don't force it on them. Both of these are accomplished by the GM saying nothing. Why the heck are there any other rules for this?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-05-20, 09:34 PM
Frankly, I prefer games where all failures are "fumbles". "You try something and it doesn't work" is a boring waste of everyone's time. "You try something and fail, and also something bad happens." makes for a more interesting game.

It obviously doesn't work in things like D&D where you roll a million dice. Which means I guess I also prefer systems where rolling is less frequent but more important.

Tanarii
2017-05-20, 10:00 PM
Sure. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that the generalization holds, based on a wider (but hardly exhaustive) set of information - among other things very few people in this thread have actually revealed their age. I'd fit better in the pro-fumble camp, and I'm not even 25.
I generally dislike fumbles and I started playing in 1984.

In fact, I can't think of any players my age IRL that I've ever heard say something positive said about fumbles. And I know a lot of grognards. Of course, most of them haven't said much negative about them either, but I certainly have heard negative things said about the idea from time to time. Usually in regard to non-D&D systems that they're baked into.

Edit: most of my youngster gaming interactions are playing D&D, so I don't have any hearing grumbles experiences there. Since fumbles are pretty much universally gone from public or semi-public tables playing that system nowadays.

Arbane
2017-05-21, 12:20 AM
I generally dislike fumbles and I started playing in 1984.

In fact, I can't think of any players my age IRL that I've ever heard say something positive said about fumbles. And I know a lot of grognards.

I know of one good gaming story that came out a fumble: The Story of Sameo. (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sameo)

RazorChain
2017-05-21, 01:31 AM
I'm pro fumble as it can lead to interesting situations. If this can be called punishing the player is a matter of perspective. When I was an youngster playing DnD fumbles were treated in an antagonistic fashion "You fall on your butt....haha...sucks to be you", "You chop of your toe...haha, sucks to be you". Now days me and my groups use it to for entertainment and to put a spin on a scene/situation.

I have mostly been playing Gurps lately and there the fumble rate is 1.9% for your average Joe or 0.5% for an expert, on a fumble I make people roll again and there is a decent chance that they'll get nothing and it just a failure. These I find decent statistic, there is a chance but it happens rarely. The other thing is how you treat your fumbles, if you use them to mock players or let their characters look like incompetent idiots then the players are going to resent fumbles.

So I often allow the player to narrate their fumble. This has worked very well, the player keeps his characters dignity but something fun or interesting happens.


In combat I incorporate fumbles into the flow of the fighting scene, a fumble trying to hit a foe might mean that while avoiding your blow he steps in puts his shoulder into you and pushes you off balance and now you have penalty to defense the next round or the foe aggressively parries your blow and disarms you.

In Gurps you have to roll to cast spells so the unfairness that it only applies to martials is very DnD centric. If any of you played Advanced Fighting Fantasy then there was 1 against 1296 that you would fumble your spell and get the result that only your smoking boots remained.....sheesh talking about how martials had it just fine in that game.

If you decide that fumbles are failure+punishment....then they are going to feel that way, if you look at fumbles as an opportunity to spice things up then they feel like they add something to the game.

If you don't like fumbles then don't use them, easy as that.

Satinavian
2017-05-21, 01:33 AM
The thing is, for a fumble effect to be rare enough to avoid shattering suspension of disbelief, that "safety system" you keep advocating would have to be several rolls deep to represent the actual odds of a professional (often a superhumanly-good one) screwing up to that degree. At which point your fail table comes up so rarely you're wasting your time writing it in the first place.The majority of systems nowadays use either dice pools or just regularly a higher dice number for a normal roll to get a more bell like probability distribution.
One side benefit is that you have very unprobable outcomes which you can then assign fumble rules to.

RazorChain
2017-05-21, 01:45 AM
I'd like to add...that there doesn't have be X/Y situations on rolls or Yes/No

Everybody knows that there are degrees of success and failures, the fumble represents the rock bottom of failure while critical success is the pinnacle of your capability.

If everything is just yes or no on rolls then maybe fumble doesn't add much to the game. But if your character is jumping across a narrow ravine and you fail, the yes/no situation dictates you fall to the bottom and die. If you use degree of failure then you might almost have made it and you get a second roll to clutch onto something and drag yourself onto the ledge whereas fumble represents that you fall to the bottom and die.

Nupo
2017-05-21, 09:16 AM
I generally dislike fumbles and I started playing in 1984.

In fact, I can't think of any players my age IRL that I've ever heard say something positive said about fumbles.I started playing in 1979 and generally like fumbles. The only people I have ever encountered that don't like fumbles are here on this forum. No one I have ever played with has ever said, or even hinted, that they wanted to do away with fumble rules. The number of people I have played with over the years however isn't huge, and most of them I introduced to gaming. I haven't ever played at public gaming tables. Heck, the nearest gaming store is 150 miles away.

Nupo
2017-05-21, 09:30 AM
In the first couple editions of D&D (where most of us older folks started with TTRPGS) the focus was very much "Try and survive, but bad stuff will probably happen. Have a couple character sheets on standby."My kind of gaming!


The last few editions of D&D more focused on "Take your special character through an epic story! If you die it's the DM's fault!"Sounds boring.

I wonder if the difference of style is connected to if you played role playing video games before coming to table top gaming. My knowledge of video games is very limited, but from what I have seen they tend to be "Take your special character through an epic story! If you die just go back to your last save point."

Tanarii
2017-05-21, 09:45 AM
I started playing in 1979 and generally like fumbles. The only people I have ever encountered that don't like fumbles are here on this forum. No one I have ever played with has ever said, or even hinted, that they wanted to do away with fumble rules. The number of people I have played with over the years however isn't huge, and most of them I introduced to gaming. I haven't ever played at public gaming tables. Heck, the nearest gaming store is 150 miles away.
I've found that in general, home games (and in my day, high school lunchroom games) are where far more complex resolution rules tend to get used. Especially critical hit tables and fumble tables.



I wonder if the difference of style is connected to if you played role playing video games before coming to table top gaming. My knowledge of video games is very limited, but from what I have seen they tend to be "Take your special character through an epic story! If you die just go back to your last save point."
In 'try desperately to stay alive' gaming the absolute last thing players want is fumbles. Which is probably why the majority of grognards hate them.

Edit: imx, IMO, etc etc :smallbiggrin:

Nupo
2017-05-21, 10:27 AM
I think the reason no one I play with objects to fumbles is characters dyeing isn't a big deal, it happens all the time. Our current campaign started in February, with weekly sessions. Three out of six players still have their original character. Two are on their second, one is on his third. Interesting to note, none of the character deaths were connected in any way to a fumble. However there was a hobgoblin leader that did drop his sword making it easier for the players to finish off.

Hiro Protagonest
2017-05-21, 02:23 PM
My kind of gaming!

Sounds boring.

I wonder if the difference of style is connected to if you played role playing video games before coming to table top gaming. My knowledge of video games is very limited, but from what I have seen they tend to be "Take your special character through an epic story! If you die just go back to your last save point."

It probably is because I played video games, because tabletop RPGs have godawful mechanics compared to them. So if I want to play "get through the ruthless dungeon!" I am not going to play "get through the dungeon of bad game design!"

Pex
2017-05-21, 07:17 PM
I think that's probably the single most fallacy-filled argument I've ever seen on this board.

The individual monster may not roll enough dice to get a spectacular fumble, but there is generally more than one monster. All that matters is how many attack rolls are being made, in total. And on average, the monsters - all of them, in aggregate - will probably be making at least as many as the players. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but in the long run I would expect it to average out at least even. That means, they're going to fumble at least as much as the players. Probably more, in fact, because they'll (mostly) be less skilled and/or the PCs will have a higher AC.

And yes, of course it has a meaning when the bad guys do it. If a boss monster fumbles badly, it's freakin' hilarious. But even when mooks do it, it can make the combat significantly easier, and will definitely make it more memorable.



Now you're just talking about DM choices and playing styles. Is the DM going to let the players take down their boss on round 1? - as you say, depends entirely on the DM. Yes, a DM who wants a big cinematic fight may well decide to cheat to make it happen. What the heck do fumbles have to do with that?

Just because you disagree doesn't make them "fallacies". I still maintain fumbles do not impact monsters as much as they do PCs. They are supposed to die anyway and do not adversely affect continued game play. The DM will go through several monsters who never fumble because they're on camera for a short time. PCs tend to use up more resources to recover from a fumble than if it was just a miss. That impacts game play. A monster's use of resources won't matter because it was expected to die anyway.

Tanarii
2017-05-21, 11:35 PM
I still maintain fumbles do not impact monsters as much as they do PCs. They are supposed to die anyway and do not adversely affect continued game play.
'Monsters are expected to die' is a specific mindset. I mean, in the context of actual combat has begun and the players weren't stupid to let that happen because they're outmatched, it's (I assume) going to be correct. But as a genral rule and context free, that's a very specific style of play.

Probably not relevant to your point considering the topic at hand and context, but I couldn't help myself. :smallbiggrin:

Psikerlord
2017-05-22, 12:30 AM
I've always found the concept of "fumbles" in a RPG intriguing (as a player... not just as a DM)

It could add some slapstick humor to the game, or alternately add some dramatic tension with an "oh crap" moment. If you look at RPGs from a "storytelling" perspective, there are plenty of books or movies where things go completely sideways for the protagonist due to dumb luck, and then he/she overcomes things anyway.

BUT, from what I have seen from other posts, many people hate the concept of fumbles.

So, I have to ask: Is there a way to implement fumbles without pissing people off?

Things I have considered:

It has to be rare. So not just rolling a 1 on a d20.
A character with high skills should fumble far less often than one with low skills
The majority of fumbles should be amusing, but minor and easy to recover from
I think fumbles are fine within a certain range of outcomes.

In Low Fantasy Gaming, an attack fumble means the melee opponent gets a free attack on you, or you reroll to hit an ally in the same melee as the target if ranged attack (if not allies melee with target, then ignore). Quick and easy - and increases the danger of combat unexpectedly - without needing to worry about making rulings on a possible disarm, or falling prone, etc.

For skill related checks, LFG uses great successes and terrible failures degrees of success depending on the roll equal or under test, and the GM is free to rule that a trained person auto avoids a terrible failure for instance, or cannot quality for a great success without training.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-22, 08:54 AM
If you consider that groan worthy annoying, it sounds like the players in the games you have played are seriously pampered.

You mean that because they don't like slapstick comedy mixed in with their fantasy game that makes them spoiled? Gotcha.

Cause - that totally makes logical sense and isn't just an attack at my character to 'prove' your point.


'Monsters are expected to die' is a specific mindset. I mean, in the context of actual combat has begun and the players weren't stupid to let that happen because they're outmatched, it's (I assume) going to be correct. But as a genral rule and context free, that's a very specific style of play.

He was correct - even if he didn't explain it mathematically.

PCs are expected to win most combats, even in more dangerous games each individual combat is leaned to go the PCs' way.

Critical fumbles add an additional random element to the game. Random elements whether critical hits, critical fumbles, or exploding die, make the combat (unsurprisingly) more random. This benefits the weaker side of every combat - which is almost always the monsters.

Therefore adding random elements to the game is always a detriment to the PCs in the long-term.

Tanarii
2017-05-22, 10:15 AM
He was correct - even if he didn't explain it mathematically.

PCs are expected to win most combats, even in more dangerous games each individual combat is leaned to go the PCs' way.No, it's a playstyle. Combat as war, for example, doesn't assume the monsters are there to die. If players are smart, they will only engage in combats where they can kill the monsters as easily as possible. But there's no assumption the monsters are there to die.

Then there's games like Cthulhu, where the players are the ones who are assumed to die if they try to fight. Also many times a true assumption in Paladium's Beyond the Supernatural, and even Rifts games.

I agree adding random negative elements to games in which trying not to die in combats, especially in ones where need to stack them in your favor before fighting such as combat as war, is far more detrimental to the players.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-22, 10:20 AM
No, it's a playstyle. Combat as war, for example, doesn't assume the monsters are there to die. If players are smart, they will only engage in combats where they can kill the monsters as easily as possible. But there's no assumption the monsters are there to die.

I suppose I could rephrase "combats which the PCs engage in". Which I thought was sort of assumed.

(And frankly - I'm always dubious of the combat as war vs sport comparison. Many of the awesome examples given of "combat as war" don't really make sense to me - especially the example I've seen about the giant bees and the owlbear.)

ExLibrisMortis
2017-05-22, 10:31 AM
No, it's a playstyle. Combat as war, for example, doesn't assume the monsters are there to die. If players are smart, they will only engage in combats where they can kill the monsters as easily as possible. But there's no assumption the monsters are there to die.
Do you ever run campaigns where there's a 50/50 shot of a party wipe per combat? That that's a small minority of campaigns, and the opposite of what most games assume (barring the slapstick genre, lookin' at you, Paranoia). In fact, a campaign assumes there will be continuity in the party makeup, and that characters will live more than twenty minutes, having undergone some character development.

Yes, you are trivially correct that it's a playstyle, but unless you have a good chance of winning each fight (don't forget, avoiding a superior enemy is a moral victory, too!), there's not going to be a whole lot of roleplaying to it. Then again, fumbles are more for the roll-players than the roll-players, I suppose. To quote Zach Weinersmith: "C'mon hatemail!"

kyoryu
2017-05-22, 10:37 AM
Combat as war/sport:
Yeah, I think there's a difference. It's the difference between "we should set up close fights to interestingly engage the tactical subsystem" and "players should try to arrange as overwhelming advantage as they can before the fight".

As with most divisions, few games are strictly to one side or the other. It's a spectrum, not a binary divide.

Monsters are expected to die:
They are, in all games. In old school games, it's more "monsters the PCs engage with are expected to die". A successful character, in just about any game, will engage in a hell of a lot of fights, and so the monster : character kill rate will be pretty extreme.

50/50 fights
Get rid of TPKs as the default (for both assumptions) and allow the losing side to get away. That's how I run Fate, and I try for a pretty tough ratio of wins to losses.

Aliquid
2017-05-22, 10:56 AM
You mean that because they don't like slapstick comedy mixed in with their fantasy game that makes them spoiled? Gotcha.

Cause - that totally makes logical sense and isn't just an attack at my character to 'prove' your point.I'm hoping you are making a general comment there... rather than actually talking about the example I was referring to. Because if that is slapstick to you, I don't even know where to start. Besides this debate started being about people's characters the moment people suggested that only sadistic DMs that like punishing players use fumbles.


He was correct - even if he didn't explain it mathematically.

PCs are expected to win most combats, even in more dangerous games each individual combat is leaned to go the PCs' way.

Critical fumbles add an additional random element to the game. Random elements whether critical hits, critical fumbles, or exploding die, make the combat (unsurprisingly) more random. This benefits the weaker side of every combat - which is almost always the monsters.

Therefore adding random elements to the game is always a detriment to the PCs in the long-term.As I have mentioned in previous posts, there is clearly a very different concept of gaming going on here. Fretting about the mathematics just makes no sense to me at all. I don't care. I'm here for a story and an adventure, not for some sort of statistical experiment.

Yes, the mechanics of the game have to work, and I do find all the different systems interesting from a meta perspective, but when playing the actual game, it is a complete and total non-issue. Every DM I have ever played with has made sure that encounters are fair and appropriate for the PCs. If the rule system (or house rules) push combat in favor of the enemy, then the DM uses less/weaker enemies. If the rule system (or house rules) push combat in favor of the PCs, then the DM places more enemies into combat. When immersed in a game, the DM has already taken care of all that crap, so the players can be absorbed in the story, and not fret about the mechanics.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-22, 11:00 AM
As I have mentioned in previous posts, there is clearly a very different concept of gaming going on here. Fretting about the mathematics just makes no sense to me at all. I don't care. I'm here for a story and an adventure, not for some sort of statistical experiment.


We're discussing a major alteration of the game's mechanics.

TTRPG mechanics are math.

Of course the math matters.

Deophaun
2017-05-22, 11:30 AM
I'm hoping you are making a general comment there... rather than actually talking about the example I was referring to. Because if that is slapstick to you, I don't even know where to start.
"In your face, Kirito! Sound effects are necessary! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak8cY6Cd63k&t=8m8s)" - Kayaba

Aliquid
2017-05-22, 11:37 AM
We're discussing a major alteration of the game's mechanics.

TTRPG mechanics are math.

Of course the math matters.This is the general roleplaying games forum. I have never talked about a specific system. Many games have fumbles as the default, so no it isn't a major alteration at all.

And even if we are talking about a system without fumbles... I still would consider it a minor alteration. And as I said in the previous post, it is an incredibly easy alteration to accommodate... the DM simply has to scale the encounters slightly differently.

Lets say that overall combats are now 2% harder. Sure that has an impact, but I really see that as a trivial aspect of this debate. I see Grod_The_Giant's issues about player agency as being a far more relevant concern.

Aliquid
2017-05-22, 11:39 AM
"In your face, Kirito! Sound effects are necessary! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak8cY6Cd63k&t=8m8s)" - KayabaHmm playing a sad trombone every time someone rolls a fumble... that would certainly change the game style.

Pex
2017-05-22, 11:44 AM
No, it's a playstyle. Combat as war, for example, doesn't assume the monsters are there to die. If players are smart, they will only engage in combats where they can kill the monsters as easily as possible. But there's no assumption the monsters are there to die.

Then there's games like Cthulhu, where the players are the ones who are assumed to die if they try to fight. Also many times a true assumption in Paladium's Beyond the Supernatural, and even Rifts games.

I agree adding random negative elements to games in which trying not to die in combats, especially in ones where need to stack them in your favor before fighting such as combat as war, is far more detrimental to the players.

If it's a continuous series of TPKs then there is no campaign. Either the players are that stupid or the DM is that tyrannical. If it's neither of those then it's a war game. Such a thing is quite popular with players having their own army of miniatures. When it's a typical campaign the monsters are to lose even if it required the utmost planning on behalf of the PCs. I would even say fumbles makes it worse if it did require utmost planning adding insult to injury.

CharonsHelper
2017-05-22, 01:25 PM
This is the general roleplaying games forum. I have never talked about a specific system. Many games have fumbles as the default, so no it isn't a major alteration at all.


Then we're discussing whether they should be removed.

Six one way, half dozen the other.

Tanarii
2017-05-22, 03:08 PM
If it's a continuous series of TPKs then there is no campaign. Either the players are that stupid or the DM is that tyrannical. If it's neither of those then it's a war game. Such a thing is quite popular with players having their own army of miniatures. When it's a typical campaign the monsters are to lose even if it required the utmost planning on behalf of the PCs. I would even say fumbles makes it worse if it did require utmost planning adding insult to injury.
None of these deal with the fact, and it is a fact, that there is a totally valid play style for various RPGs in which monsters are not assumed to be there to be killed. Mainly because it presupposes that all monsters are there for the party to fight in the first place.

Edit: For example, in WFRP, combat is supposed to be horribly dangerous, and the absolute last option a neophyte party would want to engage in. As such, not all monsters can be assumed to be there to be killed. Similarly, D&D pre-3e, not only was there no specific assumption that monsters apwere there to fight, the XP system of several versions actually encouraged bypassing them, so long as you could loot their shiny lootz.

Edit2: I agree with the idea that if combat is supposed to be reflective of and the end result of clever planning, funbles are bad. That's why I don't like them for old school D&D, which is supposed to feel like cleverly and heroically overcoming the odds. but wouldn't mind for WFRP where combat is just to be avoided at all, and it's supposed to feel like your character is going to just die / go insane eventually

CharonsHelper
2017-05-22, 03:27 PM
None of these deal with the fact, and it is a fact, that there is a totally valid play style for various RPGs in which monsters are not assumed to be there to be killed. Mainly because it presupposes that all monsters are there for the party to fight in the first place.


I don't think that anyone said that fumbles were badwrongfun. But they are much more of a hindrance to PCs than a help, despite that it's as likely to happen to monsters as to them - as is any random elements in the mechanics of a system.

On its own its not a reason to totally ban fumbles - but it should be something to be noted when making that decision.

Tanarii
2017-05-22, 04:27 PM
I don't think that anyone said that fumbles were badwrongfun. But they are much more of a hindrance to PCs than a help, despite that it's as likely to happen to monsters as to them - as is any random elements in the mechanics of a system.Oh yeah, I totally agree with that. As I said, I think they work in a system where not only is fighting supposed to be deadly to the point of being avoided, but PCs aren't expect to live (or stay sane). I definitely think they're a bad idea when combat is supposed to be deadly, but careful and intelligent planning and tactics is supposed to make it survivable in the long run.

I was just out of context nitpicking on 'monsters are expected to die'. (Plus Pex doesn't seem to get upset by my silliness, so I went ahead and nitpicked. :smallbiggrin: )

veti
2017-05-22, 05:25 PM
Just because you disagree doesn't make them "fallacies". I still maintain fumbles do not impact monsters as much as they do PCs. They are supposed to die anyway and do not adversely affect continued game play. The DM will go through several monsters who never fumble because they're on camera for a short time. PCs tend to use up more resources to recover from a fumble than if it was just a miss. That impacts game play. A monster's use of resources won't matter because it was expected to die anyway.

No, what makes it "fallacy-filled" is the fact that it's one long non-sequitur from beginning to end. The point that you seem to be trying to make is that monsters are disposable, therefore it doesn't matter when or how they die. (Which taken at face value, kinda makes the whole combat pretty pointless, but never mind that.) Whereas player resources are a rare and precious thing that must be desperately husbanded and any expenditure on - well, anything basically - is a tragedy that ruins the whole game.

I don't buy any of that.

Pex
2017-05-22, 05:56 PM
Oh yeah, I totally agree with that. As I said, I think they work in a system where not only is fighting supposed to be deadly to the point of being avoided, but PCs aren't expect to live (or stay sane). I definitely think they're a bad idea when combat is supposed to be deadly, but careful and intelligent planning and tactics is supposed to make it survivable in the long run.

I was just out of context nitpicking on 'monsters are expected to die'. (Plus Pex doesn't seem to get upset by my silliness, so I went ahead and nitpicked. :smallbiggrin: )

Worry when I take you seriously. :smallwink:


No, what makes it "fallacy-filled" is the fact that it's one long non-sequitur from beginning to end. The point that you seem to be trying to make is that monsters are disposable, therefore it doesn't matter when or how they die. (Which taken at face value, kinda makes the whole combat pretty pointless, but never mind that.) Whereas player resources are a rare and precious thing that must be desperately husbanded and any expenditure on - well, anything basically - is a tragedy that ruins the whole game.

I don't buy any of that.

The point is showing how it's impossible for monster fumbling and PC fumbling to be the same because fumbling adversely affects PCs more than monsters in the various ways.

Calthropstu
2017-05-25, 11:22 AM
I see a lot of people arguing against fumbles, but THEY HAPPEN. I watched a guy yesterday with 16 years of experience slice open his thumb with a box cutter.
In an environment as uncontrollable as combat, I can see it happening very frequently. You swing a morning star or greatsword as hard as you can expecting to hit and miss... I can see it continuing into the next square hitting an ally or another enemy.
Keeping your grip on your weapon becomes harder the longer you wield it (speaking from experience.) So your weapon flying out of your hands? Not unreasonable. I like the idea of confirmed fumbles actually... roll a 1 then roll to confirm.

Karl Aegis
2017-05-25, 11:50 AM
I see a lot of people arguing against fumbles, but THEY HAPPEN. I watched a guy yesterday with 16 years of experience slice open his thumb with a box cutter.
In an environment as uncontrollable as combat, I can see it happening very frequently. You swing a morning star or greatsword as hard as you can expecting to hit and miss... I can see it continuing into the next square hitting an ally or another enemy.
Keeping your grip on your weapon becomes harder the longer you wield it (speaking from experience.) So your weapon flying out of your hands? Not unreasonable. I like the idea of confirmed fumbles actually... roll a 1 then roll to confirm.

That's not a fumble. A fumble would be the box cutter breaks, the blade flies across the room, bounces off the wall and severs your friend's aorta. Cutting your thumb is just a failure.

Nupo
2017-05-25, 12:06 PM
That's not a fumble....Cutting your thumb is just a failure.A failure would be not cutting the box. Cutting your thumb is a fumble.


A fumble would be the box cutter breaks, the blade flies across the room, bounces off the wall and severs your friend's aorta.No thats a fumble in a very poorly implemented D&D fumble system. I can see if I played D&D with a group where fumbles were these absurd and very deadly things I would be against them to.

NRSASD
2017-05-25, 12:33 PM
Yeah, slicing your thumb with a box cutter is a fumble. Perforating your throat is waaaay over the top. I'm a huge fan of roll-to-confirm fumbles, but again, they're not freakishly weird flukes of nature, just bad luck striking at the opportune moment. With any of the "hit-yourself" fumbles, they're framed as logical accidents resulting from poor spur-of-the-moment decisions. You tried to block an ogre's club with your sword, and now your blade slashed your shoulder; you tossed an arrow to a friend and accidentally stuck them in the side (irl experience on that one). They almost always deal half damage since the point isn't to punish the character, but to flesh out their experiences.

An infallible hero is just as boring as a grossly incompetent one.

I'd say I'm on the gentler end of the "combat-as-war" camp. As a DM, I want at least one knock out per combat, but I don't want TPKs obviously. I also don't treat die rolls as sacrosanct, hence the screen. So far, it seems to work. The only deaths we've had were either strings of atrocious rolls or the PCs own self-admitted fault, but those deaths sure were memorable. Like when the elven barbarian sniped an invisible, flying ogre mage by throwing the dwarven battlerager. Killed the mage outright, but he was flying over a 200ft drop. RIP Bobby Joe

Needless to say, fumbles also apply to monsters equally. Lady Tymora has no favorites

Karl Aegis
2017-05-25, 11:04 PM
An infallible hero does not exist in a roleplaying game. Your heroes are run by players. Players make mistakes. If they don't make mistakes, you say they have a boring character which is itself a mistake. That which does not mistake is a mistake itself.

Mr Beer
2017-05-26, 12:26 AM
Fumbles are fine, I have no problem with them conceptually. if I was going to homebrew them in D&D, I'd have players re-roll a d20 on a natural 1, if they then roll a 1 again, something bad happens. Said bad thing would range from dropping their weapon or tripping over (common) to injuring themselves or a friend (rare). A 1/400 chance to badly botch an attack and a several thousands to one against hurting yourself is not unreasonable.

A better system would tilt the system depending on user skill and weapon choice and environmental factors but whatever. I don't like to bog stuff down too much.

A system where a 20th level fighter reliably stabs himself in every fight and twice on Sundays...yeah not so much, and that's probably the kind of background that a lot of hostility to fumbles originates from.

Nupo
2017-05-26, 01:54 PM
Here is the fumble chart I use, for anyone that wants to use it. Feel free to share, edit to suit your taste, or even disregard if fumble rules aren't your thing.


Fumble Chart

If a natural 1 is rolled while attacking, a DC 15 reflex save avoids fumbling. If failed, roll on the appropriate chart below.

Attacking with a weapon:
1-52 Stumble, dazed 1 round
53-60 Drop weapon
61-65 Fall, prone
66-70 Fall, prone and drop weapon
71-75 Fling weapon, lands 1d10+10 feet away
76-80 Light weapon damage (1d10+1 damage to weapon)
81-83 Stumble, stunned 1 round
84-86 Moderate weapon damage (1d10+10 damage to weapon)
87-89 Target ally, roll attack against ally’s AC for half damage, if no ally is in reach treat as moderate weapon damage (1d10+10 damage to weapon)
90-92 Target self, roll attack against your AC for half damage. If using a ranged weapon treat as target ally.
93-94 Hard fall, prone and stunned 1 round
95-96 Hard fall, prone, fling weapon 1d10+10 feet away, and stunned 1 round
97-98 Heavy weapon damage (2d20+30 damage to weapon)
99 Very hard fall, prone, fling weapon 1d10+10 feet, and stunned 2 rounds
00 Extreme weapon damage (1d100+50 damage to weapon)


Attacking with Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapons:
1-60 Stumble, dazed 1 round
61-75 Fall, prone
76-80 Strike nearby object (1d2 damage to self)
81-83 Stumble, stunned 1 round
84-86 Strike nearby object (1d4 damage to self)
87-89 Target ally, roll attack against ally’s AC for half damage, if no ally is in reach treat as strike nearby object (1d4 damage to self)
90-92 Target self, roll attack against your AC for half damage. If using a ranged weapon treat as target ally.
93-96 Hard fall, prone and stunned 1 round
97-98 Strike nearby object hard (1d6 damage to self)
99 Very hard fall, prone and stunned 2 rounds
00 Strike nearby object very hard (1d10 damage to self)

ExLibrisMortis
2017-05-26, 02:42 PM
It's interesting that about half the consequences of a fumble can be avoided by being immune to daze. Favour of the martyr is looking better by the minute!

Other than that, I want to point out that, while that's not the worst fumble chart in use, it does show you some of the bad things about fumbles. Some are basically irrelevant and uninteresting (1d2 damage to self?)(unless you're a cat, see below), some are save-or-lose (prone and stunned two rounds!?) or a loss of 50 000+ gp (1d100+50 damage to a weapon).


Let's just run the numbers.

The duke's guards are level 1 warriors with spears.
The guards have +0 reflex. That means they fumble about 75%*5% = 3.75% of the time.
Spears have hardness 5 and 5 hp. That means a confirmed fumble has a 7% chance of breaking the weapon outright, and a 2% chance of damage. I'm assuming that hardness protects, but damage isn't halved (if it's halved, there is still a 3% chance of breaking the weapon outright).
The guards practice 100 blows against a practice dummy four times a week. 100 blows takes 100 rounds (ignoring fumbles), so about ten minutes of practice. There's probably a lot of marching and maneuvering in between.
That means they fumble 15 times per week.
That means each guard breaks about one spear a week.

Incidentally, it also means that a cat, with its 2 hp, +4 reflex, and three-attack full attack, has a better-than-even chance of killing itself through fumbles, if it chases two mice a day for a year.


I do not mean that Nupo is doing it wrong. I mean that even a fairly innocent-looking fumble chart presents immersion and fairness problems.

Nupo
2017-05-26, 03:41 PM
It's interesting that about half the consequences of a fumble can be avoided by being immune to daze. Favour of the martyr is looking better by the minute!Had to look that one up. Never had anyone with a Palidin high enough level to cast that in our campaign.


Some are basically irrelevant and uninteresting (1d2 damage to self?)(unless you're a cat, see below)It's relivant if you're 1st level. We play a lot of low level campaigns. Also, we play 3.5 edition so 1st level characters don't have many hit points. 1'st level monsters don't have many HP either, and we apply the rules to them as well.


That means each guard breaks about one spear a week.We only use fumbles when it's actual combat, not practice.


Incidentally, it also means that a cat, with its 2 hp, +4 reflex, and three-attack full attack, has a better-than-even chance of killing itself through fumbles, if it chases two mice a day for a year.If only that were true. :wink:

If you like my chart and want to use it great. Or if you want to transform it into something you can use, also great. Or if you think it's a load of crap, that's fine to. No gaming rules are perfect, but if your group likes them, and you're having fun, that's all that matters.

Nupo
2017-05-26, 04:21 PM
Incidentally, it also means that a cat, with its 2 hp, +4 reflex, and three-attack full attack, has a better-than-even chance of killing itself through fumbles, if it chases two mice a day for a year.I was thinking, with CORE rules that same cat would have a better-than-even chance of killing a human commoner wearing full plate armor in just five rounds! Give me a suit of full plate and I would happily lie prone and let a cat attack me all day long. No chance it's getting through that armor in 100 years. Gaming rules are never going to be perfect, they just have to be good enough that everyone playing them is having fun.

ExLibrisMortis
2017-05-26, 05:57 PM
I was thinking, with CORE rules that same cat would have a better-than-even chance of killing a human commoner wearing full plate armor in just five rounds! Give me a suit of full plate and I would happily lie prone and let a cat attack me all day long. No chance it's getting through that armor in 100 years. Gaming rules are never going to be perfect, they just have to be good enough that everyone playing them is having fun.
Absolutely. Cats are powerful because of the minimum 1 damage per hit (they have -4 strength bonus, so they would normally hit negative numbers), which is essentially a rounding artefact. Fumble rules add similar artefacts (spear-shattering sparring), and you have to deal with those (not using fumble rules in take-10 situations makes a lot of sense). Everybody has to decide for themselves whether they like the reward:effort ratio (units: RP opportunities:die rolls, informally roleplay:rollplay).

The Extinguisher
2017-05-27, 06:18 PM
That's not a fumble. A fumble would be the box cutter breaks, the blade flies across the room, bounces off the wall and severs your friend's aorta. Cutting your thumb is just a failure.

Do people actually use fumble rules like that? Like I know you're exaggerating for effect here, but even toned down it seems pretty ridiculous.

I think we can all agree that those fumble rules are bad. But that doesn't mean all systems that allow multiple degrees of failure are bad

Pugwampy
2017-05-27, 07:08 PM
So, I have to ask: Is there a way to implement fumbles without pissing people off?

Put me in the YES PLEASE column.


Fumbles are great fun and do indeed add spice to the game . You roll 20 you have a chance to crit . Whats so bad if you roll 1 and have a chance to fumble ? I live for crit attacks and fumbles. I once have had a spellcaster player ask for fumble/crit on their range touch spell and I had no problem with that. No one is being punished .


1. If a boring someone has a real problem with your fumble rules offer them the option of no fumble / no critical attack option or tell em to make a spell caster.

2. Keep the fumble to one consistant thing only .
Fumble charts are rubbish , time consuming and some are stronger than wizard spells , some make your buddies pay for your 1 you rolled .

3. Your monsters and bad guys also suffer from fumble rules . I suspect the average fumble hater had a DM made the players fumble but never fumbled his own pets. .

4. Make fumble equal opportunity . Dont make a dex check or then it becomes unfair to people with low dex . Your AB points should have no influence . For me to confirm a fumble is just 50/50 roll

5. Offer players help on lessening or even negating fumble problems. Eg. My basic fumble rule is normal weapon is destroyed . I remind players to always have spare weapons on hand .
Perhaps your fumble rule is you lose your weapon and it goes flying . Use locked gauntlets.



My opinion is they are a valid counterbalance to criticals. That said, I agree that it is preferable to simulate them as bad luck instead of incompetance.

Thats exactly how i see it .

Malimar
2017-05-27, 07:48 PM
I do "you fumble if your total roll is 0 or less". So a skilled warrior who isn't stacking heaps of penalties will never fumble, but if you just suck at life so much that you have a negative tohit, you may fumble on occasion. It mostly comes up with low-level monsters who have secondary natural attacks.

Merellis
2017-05-27, 08:13 PM
I remember one DM not telling me that there was fumbling. Played an archer and broke my bow in the first combat. He didn't roll on any sort of list or anything, just said my bow broke. Spent five sessions getting another one, which also broke the second I rolled a one.

Ended up carrying about five bows on me at all times, and just spending whatever gold I could on magical arrows, because at least I got to keep them.

Everyone else just ended up hurting themselves, tossing their weapons a good deal away, or stabbing an ally.

Me? Broke the weapon ever single damn time.

Pugwampy
2017-05-28, 04:01 AM
I remember one DM not telling me that there was fumbling. Played an archer and broke my bow in the first combat. He didn't roll on any sort of list or anything, just said my bow broke. Spent five sessions getting another one, which also broke the second I rolled a one.



Wow 5 sessions ? Some games dont even last 5 sessions . I am all for weapon destroyed fumble but player should have the option of going back to town and replacing it straight after a fight.

oxybe
2017-05-28, 04:37 AM
Depends on two things for me:

1) if the system is setup to actually accommodate them.
2) the actual drawbacks of the fumble.

For the most part, it ends up being a no-go for me and one of the deciding factors on if I'm going to play at a table or not.

Knaight
2017-05-28, 05:09 AM
Wow 5 sessions ? Some games dont even last 5 sessions . I am all for weapon destroyed fumble but player should have the option of going back to town and replacing it straight after a fight.

Weapon destroyed tends to be weird thematically - they don't make these things out of balsa wood. There are cases where it makes sense (e.g. fumbling a defense roll in a system that has those against a weapon much bigger than yours), but it's comparatively rare for fumble systems with explicit negatives to take that into account and thus you get the thematically weird effects instead.

Keltest
2017-05-28, 08:31 AM
Weapon destroyed tends to be weird thematically - they don't make these things out of balsa wood. There are cases where it makes sense (e.g. fumbling a defense roll in a system that has those against a weapon much bigger than yours), but it's comparatively rare for fumble systems with explicit negatives to take that into account and thus you get the thematically weird effects instead.

Well, I think people if anything have a tendency to overestimate how tough weapons were. bows in particular were subject to some pretty powerful forces that would do bad things to the bow if it wasn't used correctly. Those arrows could easily have enough force to punch through armor, and if you dry fire the bow (pull and release the string without an arrow being thrown) all that energy is going back into the bow. A fumble that causes the arrow to become unaligned while drawing it could result in what is functionally a dry fire, which would break the bow.

Tanarii
2017-05-28, 09:48 AM
A lot of the discussion points out one common flaw of fumble systems: they tend to adversely affect weapon users, compared to spellcasters. Especially in D&D.

Other systems not so much. For example Warhammer Fanatsy Role Play has a magic-use specific version of a fumble called Tzeetch's Curse, which causes a chaos manifestation on certain casting rolls. It makes casting spells fairly dangerous, especially more powerful ones. But that's an intended situation.

Pugwampy
2017-05-28, 02:13 PM
Weapon destroyed tends to be weird thematically - they don't make these things out of balsa wood.

Correction they dont make "Masterwork" weapons out of balsa wood. I am sure there are a few blacksmiths who are rich enough and have enough time to make amazing steel . But like all things capitalism , shortcuts are taken to maximize profits . Most smiths are exploited.

A basic blade that has a 1 in 20 chance of shattering is a perfectly acceptable management risk . The fool who paid for the sword is also most likely about to die in the next few moments , no witnesses , no refunds , no quibble :smallbiggrin:


There is no perfect fumble rule out there .
The person who smashed his free ninety nine club or monk who fell on his buttocks will feel it much less than mr archer and his 100 GP destroyed longbow .

This is a team game . I bet every hack/slash warrior carries an unused bow and that they could spend a move action and toss theirs to the archer for the fight assuming robin hood carried no spares or rolled 1 multiple times and that just made this combat encounter a bit more interesting and memorable .

Arbane
2017-05-28, 04:00 PM
Oh, yeah, that reminds me of a D&D game I was in with a GM who liked fumble rules. The group's Rogue had just gotten a brand-new +2 Drow-bane dagger.

Fumble. "Weapon breaks."

GOOD TIMES. :smallfurious:

In the next game I played (Pathfinder) I resolved to play a Witch, operating under the rule that if I have to roll a d20, I HAVE ALREADY FAILED. That GM didn't use fumble rules, thankfully...


A lot of the discussion points out one common flaw of fumble systems: they tend to adversely affect weapon users, compared to spellcasters. Especially in D&D.

Other systems not so much. For example Warhammer Fanatsy Role Play has a magic-use specific version of a fumble called Tzeetch's Curse, which causes a chaos manifestation on certain casting rolls. It makes casting spells fairly dangerous, especially more powerful ones. But that's an intended situation.

Very true. But allowing magic fumbles raises the question of how any apprentices got through their training without exploding themselves or summoning Azathoth. And do we really want the FUN of the wizard botching their spell and dropping a fireball right on top of the party? (As someone's sig here says, the worst a fighter can do is stab themselves, a wizard can accidentally planeshift themselves to the Realm of Eternal Torment.)

Pugwampy
2017-05-28, 04:52 PM
The group's Rogue had just gotten a brand-new +2 Drow-bane dagger.

Fumble. "Weapon breaks."

OUCH !! There are truly worse things in this game than your PC dying . That takes the prize for worst fumble ever . Seriously where is this wizard spell that can snuff a +2 magic weapon ?

I once suffered a Digester vomiting over all my armour and weapons including my +3 cold iron Warmace . It all melted away like butter and I did not even roll a 1 . Dm felt we all had too much magic goodies and wanted to prune a bit . We all had to roll high or low to save our stuff . I rolled low for everything .I never felt so sorry for myself in my life.

His fumble rule was make a dex check or your weapon goes flying . I would have preferred a fumble to the digester .

Talakeal
2017-05-28, 05:32 PM
If I may put in the same two cents that I do every few months when this topic comes up:

I am solidly pro-fumble.

I have never played in a group that didn't use fumbles, and I have never seen someone get upset OOC by a fumble.*

I have never met someone who hated fumbles IRL, but it seems to be a common complaint on the forum. Indeed, players on the forums seem to be very agitated by anything that adds a random element to the game compared to people I meet IRL.

Although I enjoy crunch and tactical combat, I am solidly in the "story" camp and I rarely play in games where character death is common.

I have never played in a game with over the top fumbles, either in effect of frequency.

I have never been in a game where the DM used fumbles to make players look like an idiot. Even my really bad DM didn't do that. Also, if your DM wants to make you look like a fool, they don't need a fumble to do it.**

I typically play games where fumbles are built into the system like Storyteller or my own Heart of Darkness rather than games like D&D where they are bolted on as an afterthought.

Fumbles don't come up frequently enough to turn the game into a "slapstick comedy," although I can see them doing so in a system where people roll several dice a round and don't need to confirm, I wouldn't play in such a system. Typically I only see two or three fumbles a session and most of those are enemy mooks suffering friendly fire incidents.

As a DM I find fumbles to be a great mood adjustment. A funny description can indeed lighten the mood and get everyone laughing and having a good time, especially if it is an NPC villain who suffers it, but that is isn't the only option. Fumbles give you a unique opportunity to make the game more tense, tragic, or frightening in a way that standard combat doesn't. A horror game feels a lot scarier if your gun is jammed or you are otherwise incapacitated.

As a player I find fumbles can make for great character moments. People in this thread a complaining about how bad they feel when they make the situation worse and would be better off having not picked up the dice; I channel this emotion into my character. The knowledge that you actively made things worse adds a bit of personal tragedy to the situation and is a great moment for introspection and eventual character growth. Likewise it really helps you get into feelings of fear, frustration, or helplessness that normal gaming rarely does.***

Note, again, that a fumble doesn't have to be the character's fault, the GM could describe it as competence by the antagonist or just dumb luck.

Multiple degrees of failure are really nice. It lets things be dangerous but rarely game ending. For example, a poison that does damage on a failed save but only kills on a fumble still feels really dangerous and is deadly in the narrative, but isn't quite as random and game destroying as good old fashioned save or die.



Fumbles are realistic. People make mistakes all the time, either through their own incompetence or simple bad luck, and often times if you are in over your head it is better not to try and do something yourself but to call in an expert. Real life has tons of possible outcomes, and simplifying everything down to simple pass/fail robs the game of a lot of narrative possibilities.

Now, it is absolutely true that fumbles will occur more often in most games than they do in real life. This is simply an artifact of the dice system. Rolling for every little thing and rolling d1000's to account for obscure events simply isn't fun at the table. The dice are an abstraction made for fun and ease of play, and in my opinion one should only roll for events which occur "on camera" and when the outcome is in doubt and the consequences can be dramatic.
Making cats roll to catch mice or people roll to hit training dummies is misusing the system; and intentionally misusing an abstract system to "prove that it doesn't perfectly model reality" is missing the point. If you applied the same logic in the other direction to a system without fumbles makes an for an equally ridiculous world where the best solution to any problem is to round up a gang of yokels and have them all attempt to fix every problem no matter how complex, as they can't possibly make the situation any worse. Why pay for an expensive neurosurgeon without letting your uncle Bob perform brain surgery on you first if nothing bad can happen?




Why? Because nobody gets killed by a training dummy

Ever see Starship Troopers?




*: Well, one time, but the player was a grouch who only came to the game so he could hit on one of the girl players. One of the other PCs fired into melee, rolled a fumble, and ended up hitting his character. He then refused to participate in combat for the rest of the session because "every time I try and help my allies shoot me in the back".

**: Take for example, succeeding on a disable device roll to pick a lock on a fortress gate and the DM describes "Ok, you lean over to look at the lock, bang your head on the door, scream in pain, and then stumble around in a daze, falling into the moat. The guard hears the scream and rushes out, looks around, and doesn't see anything, so he goes back inside. When you eventually climb out of the moat, head pounding and covered in ooze, you find that the guard forgot to lock the door on his way back in. Success!"

***: Of course, if you are only there for wish fulfillment and feeling like a hero, this may be a detriment for you. But it seems from the forums that the biggest concern is looking like a fool rather than actual trauma or tragedy.

Arbane
2017-05-28, 08:00 PM
If I may put in the same two cents that I do every few months when this topic comes up:

I am solidly pro-fumble.

I have never played in a group that didn't use fumbles, and I have never seen someone get upset OOC by a fumble.*


Given that it seems like every other week you're posting here about your latest Horrible Game Experience, I humbly submit you may not be the best sample for this experiment.


Fumbles are realistic. People make mistakes all the time, either through their own incompetence or simple bad luck, and often times if you are in over your head it is better not to try and do something yourself but to call in an expert. Real life has tons of possible outcomes, and simplifying everything down to simple pass/fail robs the game of a lot of narrative possibilities.

I'm in a hurry, so can we just pretend I put a ten page tirade about the wrongheaded notion of REEEELIZM in explicitly fantastic settings with superhuman protagonists?

Talakeal
2017-05-28, 08:57 PM
Given that it seems like every other week you're posting here about your latest Horrible Game Experience, I humbly submit you may not be the best sample for this experiment.

Counter-point, I am the best example because even with all of my horror stories I have never seen fumbles ruin anyone's enjoyment of a game. I use fumbles and my players, who whine and take offense at everything else, like them. At the same time I had a horror-story DM so bad that most people assume I am trolling when I tell them about a small fraction of the things he does who used fumbles but never turned the game into a slapstick comedy with them or used them as an excuse to make the PCs look like morons.

I also spent the last three years playing in a Mage game which used botches and the only effect they ever had on me was to serve as jumping off points for introspection and character growth and greatly enhanced the game, and no one else in the group ever seemed put off by them. But I didn't post much about that campaign because "This game was awesome, please don't give me advice so everything stays the same!" doesn't make for a great thread topic.


I'm in a hurry, so can we just pretend I put a ten page tirade about the wrongheaded notion of REEEELIZM in explicitly fantastic settings with superhuman protagonists?

All fiction exists on a spectrum with both realistic and fantastical elements, expecting 100% realism or 0% realism is the only "wrong-headed" approach.

If fumbles enhance the game for you use them, if they don't, don't.

I personally prefer to play games with more or less real people put into extraordinary situations, and I prefer fumbles as they allow more narrative possibilities to exist within the story, but your tastes on both points may very (perhaps independently of one another).

Also, even literal super-heroes fumble now and again, take for example what happens between Vision and War Machine at the end of Civil War.

oxybe
2017-05-28, 09:53 PM
Fumbles are realistic. People make mistakes all the time, either through their own incompetence or simple bad luck, and often times if you are in over your head it is better not to try and do something yourself but to call in an expert. Real life has tons of possible outcomes, and simplifying everything down to simple pass/fail robs the game of a lot of narrative possibilities.

Failure is realistic.

I fail at stuff all the time, even at my job. Usually it's due to conditions outside of my control, like equipment failure at which point I need to write a ticket and send that up so one of our onsite techs can go fix it (IE something i simply cannot fix on my end).

Sometimes it's something that just escapes me and later my team lead gets a message for an unnecessary tech call, i get a slap on the wrist and we then go grab a pop by the machine later and laugh at how i missed something that was obvious.

The times where i've ****ed the pooch. Like, dramatically ****ed the pooch, has yet to happen. I'm talking legit serious policy breach type stuff. the IRL equivalent of a Fumble.

Dramatic failure to the point where it can be properly represented by a d20, is not realistic.

Talakeal
2017-05-31, 05:50 PM
Failure is realistic.

I fail at stuff all the time, even at my job. Usually it's due to conditions outside of my control, like equipment failure at which point I need to write a ticket and send that up so one of our onsite techs can go fix it (IE something i simply cannot fix on my end).

Sometimes it's something that just escapes me and later my team lead gets a message for an unnecessary tech call, i get a slap on the wrist and we then go grab a pop by the machine later and laugh at how i missed something that was obvious.

The times where i've ****ed the pooch. Like, dramatically ****ed the pooch, has yet to happen. I'm talking legit serious policy breach type stuff. the IRL equivalent of a Fumble.

Dramatic failure to the point where it can be properly represented by a d20, is not realistic.

It seems like the disconnect here is a matter of frequency and scale.

In my opinion a fumble is any time when you would have been better off doing nothing; breaking a tool, hurting yourself or someone else, giving misinformation, etc. It doesn't have to be catastrophic.

I agree that a d20 game is a lot more swingy than real life (dice pool games are better about this, and even in d20 I would always recommend you do something to "confirm" fumbles) but in my experience this is balanced out by not rolling for every little thing. Using the "swinging at a dummy for an hour" argument is the equivalent of complaining about cats killing commoners, an artifact of the math that will never come up in actual play.

In my experience I typically see 2-3 fumbles a session, the vast majority of which are simply enemy mooks tripping or having a friendly fire incident in large battles. I would say that each player character has a dramatic fumble about once every six months, which doesn't seem too out of line with reality, again assuming a fumble isn't something ridiculous like impaling yourself or bringing the building down around your ears.

Karl Aegis
2017-05-31, 06:08 PM
Friendly fire: When you act like your friends are bags of garbage.

Accidentally hit a bag of garbage? Eh, you just got garbage on the floor.

Accidentally hit a friend? Eh, you just got friend on the floor.

No big deal.

veti
2017-05-31, 10:32 PM
To put it in a real, everyday context:

"Success" is when I leave work at an acceptable time, judge my route and driving adequately, and arrive at school in time to pick up my kid no later than 5:00. Happens most days.

"Failure" is when I get there late. Happens fairly regularly. I misjudge my leaving time, pick the wrong route, forget about the roadwork or the special event today...

"Fumbling" is when I burst a tyre (done that), get a ticket for speeding or running a red light or parking, or bump another car on the way (haven't done any of those yet, but they're within the bounds of possibility). I would expect an event of that kind to happen rarely - maybe once a year, two years or so - and I call them unlucky, but not unrealistic or unreasonable. And I don't think they're incompatible with being a hero.

Calthropstu
2017-06-01, 02:09 AM
I remember one DM not telling me that there was fumbling. Played an archer and broke my bow in the first combat. He didn't roll on any sort of list or anything, just said my bow broke. Spent five sessions getting another one, which also broke the second I rolled a one.

Ended up carrying about five bows on me at all times, and just spending whatever gold I could on magical arrows, because at least I got to keep them.

Everyone else just ended up hurting themselves, tossing their weapons a good deal away, or stabbing an ally.

Me? Broke the weapon ever single damn time.

It should not have been the bow that broke, but the bow STRING. Those actually break rather frequently. It's why hunters carry around spare string.

Calthropstu
2017-06-01, 02:14 AM
It seems like the disconnect here is a matter of frequency and scale.

In my opinion a fumble is any time when you would have been better off doing nothing; breaking a tool, hurting yourself or someone else, giving misinformation, etc. It doesn't have to be catastrophic.

I agree that a d20 game is a lot more swingy than real life (dice pool games are better about this, and even in d20 I would always recommend you do something to "confirm" fumbles) but in my experience this is balanced out by not rolling for every little thing. Using the "swinging at a dummy for an hour" argument is the equivalent of complaining about cats killing commoners, an artifact of the math that will never come up in actual play.

In my experience I typically see 2-3 fumbles a session, the vast majority of which are simply enemy mooks tripping or having a friendly fire incident in large battles. I would say that each player character has a dramatic fumble about once every six months, which doesn't seem too out of line with reality, again assuming a fumble isn't something ridiculous like impaling yourself or bringing the building down around your ears.

Try more physical activity. Fumbles are much more frequent. Hammer hitting thumb, dropping something on your toe, cracking the plywood as you nail, dropping a pot of water... these are all fumbles and happen regularly.

Keltest
2017-06-01, 10:27 AM
It seems like the disconnect here is a matter of frequency and scale.

In my opinion a fumble is any time when you would have been better off doing nothing; breaking a tool, hurting yourself or someone else, giving misinformation, etc. It doesn't have to be catastrophic.

I agree that a d20 game is a lot more swingy than real life (dice pool games are better about this, and even in d20 I would always recommend you do something to "confirm" fumbles) but in my experience this is balanced out by not rolling for every little thing. Using the "swinging at a dummy for an hour" argument is the equivalent of complaining about cats killing commoners, an artifact of the math that will never come up in actual play.

In my experience I typically see 2-3 fumbles a session, the vast majority of which are simply enemy mooks tripping or having a friendly fire incident in large battles. I would say that each player character has a dramatic fumble about once every six months, which doesn't seem too out of line with reality, again assuming a fumble isn't something ridiculous like impaling yourself or bringing the building down around your ears.

The training dummy test isn't an argument against whether or not a fumble system is especially realistic so much as whether or not your fumble system is unnecessarily punishing. If a string of bad luck is sufficient to result in you running yourself through, you probably need to reconsider your system. And to a point, I agree with that argument. Injuring yourself is plausible, slipping and stabbing yourself in the face is less so.