Numenera

[SA]

The Ninth World is a science-fantasy setting approximately a billion years in the future. The people of the world dwell amid the flotsam of impossible ultratech of eight prior civilizations and call it magic. Unimaginably huge machines lie beneath the earth, and satellites orbit high above, transmitting a web of data and free energy. Nanotech, gravitic technology, genetic engineering, spatial warping, and superdense polymers allowed the inhabitants of the previous worlds to reshape the planet. Mass and energy were theirs to command.

That's my jam right there.

The concept of lost-and-reclaimed-and-lost-and-reclaimed-and-lost-again knowledge, of whole worlds built upon the detritus of former civilisation, is germane to the works of several members on this board (Steerpike, Polycarp and myself spring immediately to mind). Colour me intrigued.

[Rhamnousia]

What's kind of my favorite part about Numenera (apart from the fact that the octopus is the only creature to survived the test of time unchanged and now rule the Western Ocean) is how damn optimistic it is at heart.

Also, about the power creep or lack thereof, by the time the characters reach the Tier 6, they won't be VASTLY more powerful than they were at Tier 1, which to be fair was fairly competent; they'll be much more broadly skilled and probably have collected a small arsenal of powerful numenera, but things that could have eaten them alive and crapped out their skeletons at Tier 1 will still probably be a challenge. It's hard to generalize though, because the character's three stats (Might, Speed, and Intellect) are pools that they can spend from to fuel powers and boost rolls rather than flat values and its entirely up to the player how they want to increase them as they level up.

I'm totally not doing the flexibility of the system justice though.

[SA]

First bizarre and unnecessary thing:

(paraphrasing) "for every cumulative +3 bonus to a roll, ignore the bonus and subtract 3 from the target number."

...why?

It's not mechanically wonky, just superfluous.

[Rhamnousia]

Because target numbers are always multiples of three, from 3 to 30, so a +3 boost is the same thing as lowering the difficulty level.

I guess that's there in case someone can't put the two together?

[SA]

So why not have one or the other exclusively? Either: every advantage decreases the target by some value; or: every advantage increases your aptitude by some value.

I really don't see how cleaving steadfastly to these multiples of three and including this completely superfluous calculation makes the system better. But again, it doesn't change the maths. It's just an idiosyncratic waste of time.

[Rhamnousia]

I haven't actually seen a lot of examples in-game of things giving bonuses to rolls. Spending Effort and skill training just reduces the difficulty of the challenge by one step. As for the multiples of three, I believe it was so they could rate the difficulty of challenges and monsters on a scale of 1 to 10 (which is easy to comprehend) while having target numbers that worked with a d20.

[SA]

Ultimately, the GM is the arbiter of conflicts that do not involve the PCs. They should be adjudicated in the most interesting, logical, and story-based way possible. When in doubt, match the level of the NPCs (characters or creatures) or their respective effects to determine the results. Thus, if a level 4 NPC fights a blood barm (level 3), he'll win, but if he faces a jiraskar (level 7), he'll lose. Because an ithsyn is a level 4 creature, it resists poisons or numenera devices of level 3 or less, but not those of level 5 and above.

This is good. A simple metric that minimises GM wank and reinforces the game's core conceit:

"the players are the independent variable. They must act to change the state of play."

Intrusions
The part where the GM tantalises players with complications for XP is right up my alley. The part where refusing those intrusions costs XP is complete bullshit.

A player's god given right to say "No, sir, I don't want to suddenly lose my sword for no reason at all" should not be punished. The part where GMs can intrude for free on a natural 1 is promising, but needs work.

[Rhamnousia]

The rules for creatures and NPC's are extremely bare-bones, especially compared to the detailed character creation, which I suspect is to deter GMs from dragging the story away from the players.

And yes, GM Intrusion is probably among the most controversial elements of the game and I haven't really heard of anyone coming up with an effective houseruling on it. I think the mark of an effective GM would be knowing when an Intrusion will complicate the situation in a compelling way that won't get the player killed.

[SA]

What's funny about that whole concept is that every situation the GM introduces is already a complication. Intrusions need to be formalised: specific complications for the various classes of action. Intrusions as written are Destructive because they are Ambiguous and therefore subject to Abuse.

It's worth pointing out that the book is fucking gorgeous. I doubt I'll ever use the system myself even though I funded it (Clarke's third law goes best with a dollop of Fudge), but I will probably snag Torment: Tides of Numenera when it ships. It's so sexy.

[sparkletwist]

GM Intrusion is probably among the most controversial elements of the game and I haven't really heard of anyone coming up with an effective houseruling on it.

I haven't actually read the system proper, so I might be barking up the wrong tree, but from the critiques I've read here, it seems like separating your meta-points and your character-advancement-points would be a really good start. Then it's basically a FATE-like meta-points system, where you get meta-points when the GM messes around with you and then you can spend them to refuse that messing around or reroll the dice or make decrees or all of that good stuff, and the whole thing is entirely unrelated to your long-term character advancement.

[SA]

Exactly. There is currently no incentive to use an XP to reroll an action. There is every incentive to accept intrusions, because, as written, playing your character according to the competencies with which they were designed actually delays advancement. You could throw out this little resource management mini-system and the game would work better.

Alternatively, separate Intrusions from discoveries (the other, more traditional source of XP). Intrusions generate narrative capital, discoveries propel character advancement.

[Rhamnousia]

My disagreement with the meta-point system is that, from a storytelling perspective, accepting Intrusions seems like a perfectly reasonable way of advancing your character both in terms of progressing up the tiers and in obtaining benefits. Having gone back and looked at the section on Intrusions, I don't actually hate the system as much as I thought I did, though that comes with a big caveat that it not be used to try and twist the knife when the players' backs are to the wall. It recommends throwing Intrusions at players when they're attempting tasks that should be automatic successes, which seems to preclude life-or-death situations.

[SA]

My disagreement with the meta-point system is that, from a storytelling perspective, accepting Intrusions seems like a perfectly reasonable way of advancing your character both in terms of progressing up the tiers and in obtaining benefits.

Agreed. The subsystem as it stands is almost perfectly fine.

that comes with a big caveat that it not be used to try and twist the knife when the players' backs are to the wall

There's the rub. GMs can do this whenever they want. Players can be punished for refusing. It's institutionalised railroading. The fact that this kind of GM tyranny is written into the fabric of the game is terrible and Monte Cook should feel terrible for including it.

[Rhamnousia]

Pretty much all roleplaying games have it written somewhere that regardless of the rules, whatever the gamemaster says, goes: Rule 0, Storyteller fiat, etc. One of the biggest gambles in roleplaying (at least for me) is that the GM is going to be a tyrannical railroader who fudges dice and all you can do is accept it. I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of even if the GM tries to screw you, you at least have the opportunity to profit off of it, and I'd imagine the extra XP would be an incentive for players to cooperate to overcome new challenges. I feel like it could definitely do with some clarification on what Intrusions can and cannot do, like how many extra levels of difficulty can be added to a challenge, but I don't see it as game-breaking on its face. Then again, I enjoy the setting and the rest of the system enough that I'm inclined to overlook the one glaring wart until it becomes a hassle.

Edit: the book does give potential Intrusions for the various character foci as well as creatures, but I'm not sure what a good houserule for limiting the former would be.

[SA]

It's in no way game breaking. It just adds nothing of value at all. Intrusions are elegant and an improvement on traditional levelling without saying "and if you don't, it'll go bad for you".

Keep the carrot, ditch the stick. It's the easiest houserule in the history of houserules.