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

[Thomas Shey]

The penalties applied are those in accordance with the game rules rather than "more than like."

Fill in "the designers" for "you" if you like; it doesn't change my opinion.

 

[Aldarc]

Fill in "the designers" for "you" if you like; it doesn't change my opinion.

Are there any games you play with player encumbrance penalties? If yes, why are those cases acceptable but cypher encumbrance unacceptable?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are there any games you play with player encumbrance penalties? If yes, why are those cases acceptable but cypher encumbrance unacceptable?

Not many, and they usually based on actual physical encumbrance. The ones that do abstract encumbrance, do it absolutely; they don't try to play games with a stick.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I agreed with the rest of your post, I should note that this is only a problem with games who's structure mandates massive special casing. I ran RuneQuest and the Hero System for years, and in both of those PCs and NPCs are essentially constructed the same way, and it did not create the problems that occurred in 3e, because everything was done to a fundamentally common metric with few parts that once you were familiar with the system required extra cognitive load you weren't already handling dealing with the system at all; virtually none in Hero (which, for all of its detail has all the parts fundamentally designed as a set) and very little in Runequest (where you did have some spell-related functions that varied widely, but where even an experienced character whether PC or NPC would only have a very limited number of.)

Overall I still stand by my point, but I can recognize that a system designed to be simple/lightweight enough--or a system if you abstract far enough--can work this way. The latter, to be clear, would be something like "well all monsters in 4e have powers, and powers are what PCs use." IMO, that is abstraction to the point of no longer preserving the relevant distinctions. This, to me, is like saying, "well all things are made of atoms so everything really is the same." It abstracts away the very meaningful differences of chemistry, because which specific atom something is made of, and the specific way they are arranged, is hugely important for how it will behave.

(As an aside, Fate would be an example of the former. Nearly everything really is Aspects, by intent, but "Aspect" is so open and flexible, it can mean almost anything from an inanimate object to a skill to a character flaw to a belief etc.)

Unfortunately, having never played RQ or the Hero system I cannot truly say if either of these things applies to them. Still, as said, I think any game which rises beyond a certain minimum complexity necessarily benefits from divergent PC vs NPC design, though I don't precisely know where that minimum falls. This occurs because as I said in the previous post, the design utility of NPCs is very different from that of PCs. They (almost always) only see brief flashes of existence and make one or two punchy actions before being removed forever. To make that actually work out enjoyably is incredibly tricky when you have to build everything exactly like a player character.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Overall I still stand by my point, but I can recognize that a system designed to be simple/lightweight enough--or a system if you abstract far enough--can work this way.

I've never heard either Hero or RQ described as "lightweight"; some consider both of them "simpler" than D&D specifically because of the reduced number of special cases, but they'd not be considered "simple" by most people who use that term for an RPG.

The latter, to be clear, would be something like "well all monsters in 4e have powers, and powers are what PCs use." IMO, that is abstraction to the point of no longer preserving the relevant distinctions. This, to me, is like saying, "well all things are made of atoms so everything really is the same." It abstracts away the very meaningful differences of chemistry, because which specific atom something is made of, and the specific way they are arranged, is hugely important for how it will behave.

Hero, however, provides that as an end-user construction choice combined with skinning; there's nothing intrinsic in the core mechanic for, say, a Hand to Hand Killing Attack that tells you anything beyond the fact it uses the Killing Attack mechanic, and is hand to hand. If you want more you have to apply other modifiers in construction (and sometimes there's little need; a big claw will work fine just as a base HKA).

(As an aside, Fate would be an example of the former. Nearly everything really is Aspects, by intent, but "Aspect" is so open and flexible, it can mean almost anything from an inanimate object to a skill to a character flaw to a belief etc.)

Unfortunately, having never played RQ or the Hero system I cannot truly say if either of these things applies to them. Still, as said, I think any game which rises beyond a certain minimum complexity necessarily benefits from divergent PC vs NPC design, though I don't precisely know where that minimum falls.

I'd argue this is only true when PC complexity normally rises above a certain level. Certain specific kinds of PCs in both games I reference can be that way, but not all by any means (and not even all of a type--you can have Hero System mages (given the broadness of the term) who are relatively simple and Hero System fighters who chose options to make them complex. But its not intrinsic to either). Similarly, very few RQ characters who are not heavily into magic are complex in any way I'd see as deserving the term.

This occurs because as I said in the previous post, the design utility of NPCs is very different from that of PCs. They (almost always) only see brief flashes of existence and make one or two punchy actions before being removed forever. To make that actually work out enjoyably is incredibly tricky when you have to build everything exactly like a player character.

But again, I think you're making an assumption about an intrinsic complexity of PCs that isn't valid. For example, I can say the number of PCs in either game that is as meaningfully complex as, say, a 15th level D&D 4e character is very small.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But again, I think you're making an assumption about an intrinsic complexity of PCs that isn't valid. For example, I can say the number of PCs in either game that is as meaningfully complex as, say, a 15th level D&D 4e character is very small.

Okay. If the game is really simple, you can use the same things for both. If it's not really simple, you can't. I feel like you are nitpicking over a really obvious implied aspect of what I've said.

Maybe it would be more useful to actually show an example of what this stuff looks like? Your "Hand to Hand Kill Attack" description really wasn't very helpful to me--that sounds like the equivalent of an iterative attack in 3e, Melee Basic in 4e, or Extra Attack in 5e.

Alternatively, it might simply be a topic for a different thread, since it's neither here nor there for the Cypher System.

So, since I apparently need to spell out every tiny implication and cover literally all possible conditions of things:

"It is an error to expect that in all possible games no matter what, non-player characters should be built perfectly exactly always the same as player characters, when the function these two things serve is very different. Some systems are compatible with this approach. Some are not. To enforce it on absolutely all systems is a major error, one very commonly encountered. Exactly why it is so commonly encountered is beyond the scope of this discussion."

Is that adequate now? Or have I included more invalid assumptions to nitpick?

 

[Aldarc]

Not many, and they usually based on actual physical encumbrance. The ones that do abstract encumbrance, do it absolutely; they don't try to play games with a stick.

I'm not sure if I follow your meaning here, particularly the last sentence. What do you mean by "do it absolutely" and how do they not "play games with a stick"? And if they do have encumbrance rules, why is that not playing with a stick and yet you believe that cypher encumbrance is playing with a stick?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay. If the game is really simple, you can use the same things for both. If it's not really simple, you can't. I feel like you are nitpicking over a really obvious implied aspect of what I've said.

The problem is I think you're using an idiosyncratic definition of "simple" here. I suspect strongly that few people would consider RQ or (especially) Hero as "simple". They're just not very special-case intensive, which is not the same thing.

Maybe it would be more useful to actually show an example of what this stuff looks like? Your "Hand to Hand Kill Attack" description really wasn't very helpful to me--that sounds like the equivalent of an iterative attack in 3e, Melee Basic in 4e, or Extra Attack in 5e.

A Hand to Hand Killing Attack is a power definition in Hero. It tells you a cost per increment (a D6 of it costs 15 points in the character build budget) and mechanical behavior (Killing Attacks are rolled as-is and then multiplied by either the hit location hit in games that use that, or by a multiplier die in others, in contrast with Normal damage which is rolled as a set; the system also distinguishes between Body Damage (which is the damage that injures or kills you) and Stun damage (which can stun and knock you out). Killing attacks are more efficient at doing Body and less efficient at doing Stun).

Natively, with no other modifiers applied, all buying a HKA tells you is that you have some non-ranged Killing Attack that is modified by your Strength value (to a cap of twice the basic damage). Without other modifiers, it best represents something like a big claw. To represent other things (a sword, a set of smaller claws, a stinger) you'd apply Advantages and Limitations to get a more mechanically correct result. And of course it doesn't, per se, tell you anything about the in-world definition of what you have. There's also nothing in the system that would force you to apply addition modifiers to get that closer approximation; minor benefits and deficits are usually assumed to be rolled into that in-world definition (referred to as "special effects" within the system) but they're supposed to be pretty minor, so how much you go down the rabbit-hole of that definition is up the person purchasing it, the genre, and the group conventions.

But in use, you'll often see something like the following "War Pick: 1D6+1 HKA, AP, OAF". What that tells someone familiar with the system is that its a Hand to Hand Killing Attack, is Armor Piercing (which cuts the defenses it goes against in half), and is an Obvious, Accessible Focus (which means the source of the ability to do it is obvious, and the source can both be disarmed and potentially damaged/destroyed).

Few people would consider that "simple". But to anyone familiar with the system, having that summary I just listed in the quotation marks tells them everything they need to know about how the pick works without having to have anything more extended, or ever look up anything further. A similar thing would apply to this: "War Hammer: +1 OCV, 1D6 HKA, +1 Stun Multiple, OAF". The difference between the two weapons is that the Warhammer is more accurate (+1 OCV (Offensive Combat Value), does not have the armor piercing function, does a little less damage, but also does more Stun (+1 Stun Multiple).

This means any variations on this are largely baked into what you see on the summary; there may be a few cases of Advantages or Disadvantages you don't know what they do (largely because they're things that are rarely seen) but everything is baked into the basic construction whether its weapons, spells, other kinds of powers or basic abilities. There's no examples of "this one off thing that is used for this purpose and works in this specific way that you need to keep track of".

Alternatively, it might simply be a topic for a different thread, since it's neither here nor there for the Cypher System.

Well, I already typed it now. If you want to suggest any further discussion we spin off into another thread after this, I'm amenable.

So, since I apparently need to spell out every tiny implication and cover literally all possible conditions of things:

"It is an error to expect that in all possible games no matter what, non-player characters should be built perfectly exactly always the same as player characters, when the function these two things serve is very different. Some systems are compatible with this approach. Some are not. To enforce it on absolutely all systems is a major error, one very commonly encountered. Exactly why it is so commonly encountered is beyond the scope of this discussion."

Is that adequate now? Or have I included more invalid assumptions to nitpick?

I'm more satisfied with the result, but I'll flat out tell you that if you think being called on overgeneralizing as being "nitpicking" you and I are going to have a bunch of bad interactions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not sure if I follow your meaning here, particularly the last sentence. What do you mean by "do it absolutely" and how do they not "play games with a stick"? And if they do have encumbrance rules, why is that not playing with a stick and yet you believe that cypher encumbrance is playing with a stick?

What I mean is that they simply say "X number but no further". Period. There's no penalty for doing it further, you just don't get to because its already become an abstraction. I consider the latter far more honest.

 

[Aldarc]

What I mean is that they simply say "X number but no further". Period. There's no penalty for doing it further, you just don't get to because its already become an abstraction. I consider the latter far more honest.

I'm not sure if I agree, but I appreciate the clarification of your earlier post.