Cypher System by Monte Cook Games: what do you think about it?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I'd argue part of that is the people most likely to find that element of MSH may well already have had other issues with it. Though its got some big fans, it wasn't like it was the only place that had failure states, and some were much more pointed given the genre it was representing.

Mostly it was a game which was rather different and somewhat innovative in its time. I probably wouldn't compare it that favorably to some current game designs, no. But IMHO that's also sort of the issue with Cypher. It really doesn't seem all that modern, mechanically and in terms of its process of play.

 

[Aldarc]

Mostly it was a game which was rather different and somewhat innovative in its time. I probably wouldn't compare it that favorably to some current game designs, no. But IMHO that's also sort of the issue with Cypher. It really doesn't seem all that modern, mechanically and in terms of its process of play.

Monte Cook, IMHO, is a product of the '90s and '00s era of design philosophy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Monte Cook, IMHO, is a product of the '90s and '00s era of design philosophy.

Yeah, I don't think I will rehash stuff I am pretty sure I said way back on page 1 of this thread, and its certainly not a thought original to me. I think Monte is good at the 'color' kind of stuff, his offerings have a pretty refined tone and color, and there are mechanical elements to tie into that, but I find the various spins on PbtA, FitD, or BW, etc. to offer a lot more in terms of what HAPPENS during play.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Hi Dragonbane.
Thank you for the links to your files in DriveThruRPG. By any chance, are you looking to update the documents soon?
Tks

Not at the moment. I am running two tables, have a ton of piano students right now, just sold my house and am moving, have Long COVID for 2+ years, and some other life-issues preventing me from updating anything. Is there something you wanted in particular?

 

[Von Ether]

A gap between "this is how the designer wanted this mechanic to be used" and "this is what the mechanic's design actually encourages players to do" is one of the hallmarks of flawed game design. For all the bold assertions of pragmatism that come from amateur-designer DMs, there is a rather strange trend in TTRPG design to emphasize that designer intent should always be what matters most. That users who don't follow that--regardless of why they do so--are the ones at fault, not the design or designer. It's very frustrating.

In this case, the ideal is certainly that the DM should only be using Intrusions because they make the game better, and never do so when they wouldn't make the game better. Unfortunately, I find that a lot of DMs don't actually know how to do that, and indeed have a lot of mistaken but entrenched beliefs about what leads to better gaming. As was said earlier, the gap between "this is something the player explicitly opted into in advance" and "this is something the DM forces, and extracts a price if refused" is pretty big, and there's quite a bit of room for resentment or frustration even if the DM genuinely believes what they're doing is good.

Honestly a bad GM, intentional or unintentional, can ruin any rules set regardless of perceived quality.

Oddly enough, in the years of running Cypher and seeing it run, I haven't seen GM Intrusions, cyphers, or their limits used as a way to screw over players and I haven't seen it discussed this way in the Cypher Unlimited discord which has been around for years and has over 4 thousand members.

And we'll have to agree to disagree as to the average level of a GM's ability to read their table - that's subjective at the start since we'd have to start by splitting up the one-shot tables vs the long-time tables. We're now seeing two camps in the thread: "Benefit of the doubt" vs. "Assume the worst" of these mechanics.

But I've also run D&D games with firearms for years without a problem and other GM's froth at the mouth at the very mention of guns and say it can't be done. That frothing eventually is followed up by a horror story of how guns somehow ruined a game.

Often a bad early experience can color a gamer's expectations and I've been blessed to not meet a "us vs them" GM, even if unintentional, for a long time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly a bad GM, intentional or unintentional, can ruin any rules set regardless of perceived quality.

Sure. The problem is the unintentional ones though; the ones who think they're doing the right thing when they aren't. It can be extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to convince them that they are wrong, even in the face of the evidence of actual play (because there's always something else that could be the problem instead.)

Oddly enough, in the years of running Cypher and seeing it run, I haven't seen GM Intrusions, cyphers, or their limits used as a way to screw over players and I haven't seen it discussed this way in the Cypher Unlimited discord which has been around for years and has over 4 thousand members.

I...genuinely 100% don't understand how the cypher limit doesn't, because using it as intended is screwing players over. "Oh, you decided not to consume valuable and essentially irreplaceable consumables on one-off benefits? Sucks to be you, suffer with penalties or forgo getting any more consumables." The rule by design screws players who are reluctant to consume resources.

And we'll have to agree to disagree as to the average level of a GM's ability to read their table - that's subjective at the start since we'd have to start by splitting up the one-shot tables vs the long-time tables. We're now seeing two camps in the thread: "Benefit of the doubt" vs. "Assume the worst" of these mechanics.

It's not a matter of "assume the worst." It's a matter of "most things will be only average." A mechanic which is predicated on being above-average is a mechanic that is going to run into issues.

But I've also run D&D games with firearms for years without a problem and other GM's froth at the mouth at the very mention of guns and say it can't be done. That frothing eventually is followed up by a horror story of how guns somehow ruined a game.

Often a bad early experience can color a gamer's expectations and I've been blessed to not meet a "us vs them" GM, even if unintentional, for a long time.

Whereas I have spoken with many, many, MANY such GMs over the years. Ones who openly take glee in banning things their players might want. It's a real issue, and not just among D&D players.

 

[Von Ether]

Whereas I have spoken with many, many, MANY such GMs over the years. Ones who openly take glee in banning things their players might want. It's a real issue, and not just among D&D players.

Yep. And those experiences very likely impact you probably view of how GM's use game mechanics. If I had the same life experience in gaming , I'd probably be much more suspicious of game mechanics as well.

I respect that Cypher is not your thing.

It just that some of the speculation on the whys of it doesn't match my actual experience of running the game for years or the many in-depth discussions with fellow Cypher GMs, so I'll agree to disagree on those points and bow out.

 

[Aldarc]

I...genuinely 100% don't understand how the cypher limit doesn't, because using it as intended is screwing players over. "Oh, you decided not to consume valuable and essentially irreplaceable consumables on one-off benefits? Sucks to be you, suffer with penalties or forgo getting any more consumables." The rule by design screws players who are reluctant to consume resources.

I don't know why you read everything that places limits on PCs as trying to "screw over the player." Oh no! Magic item attunement in 5e is designed to "screw over the player" by limiting how many magic items they can carry at once! I'm sorry, but I find the idea that cypher limits are mechanics to "screw over the player" to be laughably absurd.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know why you read everything that places limits on PCs as trying to "screw over the player." Oh no! Magic item attunement in 5e is designed to "screw over the player" by limiting how many magic items they can carry at once! I'm sorry, but I find the idea that cypher limits are mechanics to "screw over the player" to be laughably absurd.

Having too many cyphers literally starts applying debuffs to the character. Simply possessing them--literally just having them on your person at all--is enough to cause a problem.

It's not at all like attunement.

 

[Aldarc]

Having too many cyphers literally starts applying debuffs to the character. Simply possessing them--literally just having them on your person at all--is enough to cause a problem.

It's not at all like attunement.

Yes and? Cypher are to be used and not hoarded.