Fumbles

EddyPo · Post by **EddyPo** » Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:42 am

Hey everyone.

What do you consider a fumble in CoC? 00? 96-00? I want to know when my players Jimmy their rolls.

Nvision · Post by **Nvision** » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:41 pm

With a roll of 96-00 in any context I like to contextualize with some horrible mishap. 00 has a special kind of hell attached to it, but that top 5% is all fair game at my table. Initially, I had some trouble whipping up suitable context for things like a fumbled listen or spot hidden. Now I love those rolls... The player certainly might not see that all important clue or hear the skulking creature, but could certainly fixate on what they thought was key to the whole case or perhaps overhear more than they should have. "What did they just say about my mother?!"

"Jimmy their rolls" needs to be a household term. Someone needs to see about getting this into 7th ed.

Dr. Gerard · Post by **Dr. Gerard** » Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:36 am

It certainly brings new meaning to the old term to "Jimmy the lock."

I agree about 96-100 being a fumble, and 00 being especially bad. You can tell something especially bad is called for because when it's rolled, everyone at the table tends to get all quiet and go "oooooooh."

In my rookie campaign, one of my players once pulled a 00 on a stealth roll while trying to climb over a graveyard fence. I decided that he would not only make some noise, but also have to roll a dex*5 to avoid a nasty fall. He failed. On the fly, I decided he would take 1d3 damage. In retrospect, that was way too much for a non-combat injury. He rolled a 3.

So, while trying to scale a fence, he caught a pantleg on the top of an iron picket and pitched forward like a pendulum, smacking his face on the stone wall foundation and breaking his nose. Dogs barked. Porch lights switched on. Expedition over.

"Do you think your guy is a bleeder?" I asked.

"Oh yeah, it's gushing all over," said the player. "I head to the hospital."

"That's probably why it was so easy for the patrolman to find you walking along the road on the way there. Blood trail."

After some uncomfortable questions and a trip to the emergency room, the character walked around for the next week with black eyes and a nose bandage ala Nickleson in Chinatown.

While I probably overdid it on that one, I think the incident was the first time I realized that players seem to LOVE it when bad things happen to their characters. And I learned that so do I.

Gladius · Post by **Gladius** » Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:24 pm

I think the 6e rules say that a 96+ is a fumble if your skill is below something like 75%, and a 00 is a fumble if your skill is above 75.

I had a player roll a 00 when trying to throw a firepot at a flying polyp in Arrius Lurco the other day. Whoops. I had him fumble it behind him, it broke, exploded, doing damage to both him and the player standing next to him.

EddyPo · Post by **EddyPo** » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:48 pm

Thanks guys. That helps a bunch!

MrEben · Post by **MrEben** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:10 am

I don't know what edition we got it from, but we play it like this:

For skills 25% and below 96-00 is a fumble.

For skills 50% and below 97-00 is a fumble.

For skills 75% and below 98-00 is a fumble.

For skills above 75% 99-00 is a fumble.

00 is always catastrophically bad.

PirateLawyer · Post by **PirateLawyer** » Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:27 am

Another rule of thumb:

You cannot fumble a SAN roll.

trevlix · Post by **trevlix** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:35 pm

PirateLawyer wrote:Another rule of thumb:

You cannot fumble a SAN roll.

I disagree. I've always played that if you roll a 00 on a SAN roll (or even a 99), then things are even worse than normal for you. Depending on the situation, it could mean you lose a few extra SAN points, or automatic temp insanity. Of course, I've also gone the other way where nothing additional happens. Whatever works with the flow of the game.

PirateLawyer · Post by **PirateLawyer** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:21 pm

trevlix wrote:I disagree. I've always played that if you roll a 00 on a SAN roll (or even a 99), then things are even worse than normal for you.

That's your prerogative as Keeper (so long as your players know about it ahead of time). Personally, I don't feel the need to implement a house rule to that effect, because when my players fail a SAN roll, I'm usually achieving the desired emotional state on my players. Stacking extra mechanical penalties on the investigator isn't desirable, to my way of thinking.

trevlix wrote:Depending on the situation, it could mean you lose a few extra SAN points, or automatic temp insanity. Of course, I've also gone the other way where nothing additional happens. Whatever works with the flow of the game.

This is where the rationale about imposing severe supplementary penalties falls apart for me. Let's say Investigator John Smith sees a Deep One. He's disgusted, fails his SAN check, and loses 1d6 sanity. Later, he finds a Deep One hybrid. Oh no! There are more of them, and these are partially human. He fumbles his SAN check. The Malleus Monstorum gives a range of penalties (d4 or d6), but by your method he loses, what, d6+3? 2d6? Automatic temporary insanity? Or as Keeper you get to hold the Sword of Damocles over your players' heads and not impose an additional penalty? This all seems pretty arbitrary to me. I prefer to stick to the rules and do my job as Keeper to convey the horror without the big stick of an artificial laugh track of horror if the player fails his SAN check with a 99 or 00.

Nvision · Post by **Nvision** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:20 pm

PirateLawyer wrote:This is where the rationale about imposing severe supplementary penalties falls apart for me. Let's say Investigator John Smith sees a Deep One. He's disgusted, fails his SAN check, and loses 1d6 sanity. Later, he finds a Deep One hybrid. Oh no! There are more of them, and these are partially human. He fumbles his SAN check. The Malleus Monstorum gives a range of penalties (d4 or d6), but by your method he loses, what, d6+3? 2d6? Automatic temporary insanity? Or as Keeper you get to hold the Sword of Damocles over your players' heads and not impose an additional penalty? This all seems pretty arbitrary to me. I prefer to stick to the rules and do my job as Keeper to convey the horror without the big stick of an artificial laugh track of horror if the player fails his SAN check with a 99 or 00.

On an failed SAN of 00 I think something additional can add to the story, and strengthens the theme of a random uncaring universe. I'll have the player rolling a 00 on a SAN take an immediate full loss for the range provided. So, if it's the scenario you have above, on a 1d6 loss it would just be a full 6. The rationale for the loss is up to me as a Keeper, and I like being kept on my toes like that. In this instance, the full horror could come from the fact that the player realises these creatures exist, but that they've also been breeding with humans, and apparently in some number. In the xenophobic '20's this kind of horror is going to have some serious additional clout.

Again, it's a house rule to apply fumble rolls to SAN checks, but it can work within your game.