I felt exactly as you did, once. But these days its the only system I tend to really enjoy anymore, so things did change. YMMV of course!
Okay. I'd like to dig into that, if you don't mind. Because this sounds at least vaguely like what happened to me with 4e, except there I was able to "get it" from reading and that didn't happen with Cypher.
Note, I know nothing of the specific differences between "original" and Revised, other than that some exist, because the original was such a turn-off I never saw a reason to look into it any further (and only semi-recently learned that Revised even exists.) So if I say something that sounds blatantly incorrect, if possible contrast it against the un-Revised version as well.
The main reason to split XP into two resources is primarily to disabuse players of the notion that the only purpose of XP is to exclusively level up. Once players get into the idea that there are a range of rewards that have both temporary and long term effects they can spend on, and the idea sets in, then it becomes less necessary (ime, ymmv) to try and enforce that.
Officially supporting it is of course wise, but I don't see how the incentive doesn't immediately swoop right back in the moment you return to one currency that has both temporary and permanent options. A player who invests 100% of their XP into permanent advancement is getting
more out of their XP than one who doesn't. Period. Yes, temporary benefits are fun and cool, and I support games encouraging players to embrace stuff like that. Making a single resource that can be frittered away on stuff that
won't matter next week also be the resource that gives you your versatile, universal, week-after-week problem-solving tools is not a good choice for rationally encouraging players to embrace the weird and temporary and context-limited. Cutting rewards in half so that players are
forced to do the thing you want, rather than creating a system where the
rational choice is to spend about half your resources on temporary effects, is IMO inferior design. Whenever possible, the game should reward players for choosing to play the game as intended; punishments for, and restrictions against, playing it in unintended ways should be used sparingly, only where it is impractical or impossible to use positive reinforcement.
Or, in brief, the rules themselves should make the player excited to play the game as intended, not annoyed that they
have to play the game as intended Or Else.
It is to convince you that I, and other people, do like and enjoy the Cypher approach and that's okay. It's a divisive system, but I became a convert a while ago and now it's hard to look back on the bad old days of limiting my thought to just one approach to gaming. When I run D&D 5E or Traveller these days after running Cypher I tend to immediately start missing Cypher's many unique elements in play simply because they provide an inherently codified structure to encouraging more interesting and often unexpected gameplay that still meshes well narratively.
Well, I cannot deny its divisiveness! But I can empathize with the "I miss X" stuff. Are those things like the stuff mentioned? The "casting from HP," the (IMO draconian) Cypher limit, the "XP can be invested in permanent gains or spent on tasty candy"? I fully expect DM Intrusions to be one of those things, but please correct me if that's not the case. Likewise I assume your list of liked/loved items does
not include the controversial pre-Revised comment that the GM should change the world to ensure the players never truly solve any mysteries of the setting's past.
I ask this because I assume there is
more to Cypher than just the controversial bits.
It's Not Like Traditional RPGs in pace: It's important to not run it like D&D. By this I mean, a lot of stuff which D&D is good at such as tactical combat and procedural "go here, encounter monster, fight, loot, move to next event, etc." just defeats the whole point of Cypher System. I would equate it to this: a movie which I think reflects a really interesting Cypher game is Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That movie has a plot and theme which would be utterly pointless in a D&D game, but Cypher would handle a plot like encountering and solving the mystery of V'Ger exceedingly well.
I find this interesting, as it leans toward things I also like. What makes this difference? Why is it a "mysteries" system?
Player's Need to Adapt to the Idea of the Risk Pool:
Gonna be honest, I genuinely don't grok what you're saying here.
Even more important, you have to think of the risk pool differently than you do with the more passive stat modifiers of other RPGs.
This one is slightly more transparent because of my experience with TTON, but not a lot. Does this mean (essentially) that it's a cost-risk-benefit analysis on whether to burn risk pool in order to succeed?
The Risk Pool is also not your hit points. Even though it is reduced by damage, and frankly works a lot like Traveller, it's part of the balancing act of Cypher that the same pool you can use to modify difficulty through expenditures is also your health pool, because taking injury effectively also reduces your ability to spend from the pool. This is on purpose....and players who complain that health needs to be separate from the might/speed/intellect pool are not realizing this is by design.
I'm very confused here. First you say, in no uncertain terms, "the Risk Pool is also not your hit points." Yet then you say "the same pool you can use to modify difficulty through expenditures is also your health pool...." So...is the pool totally not hit points or is it truly actually hit points? This also doesn't seem to address any of the concerns regarding death spirals, as others have noted.
Descriptor/Type/Focus is not like alignment/race/class:
Frankly, this is the one part of the design I find almost entirely unproblematic (on a conceptual level, at least.) Before Revised, I was given to understand that there were some poor showings in actually supporting the different Types (that is, Nanos were at very least overtuned, Glaives were pigeonholed, and Jacks were weird and had no personal niche), but at least the
concept of the thing made sense. I am also given to understand that much effort was put into addressing the weaknesses of the Type part of this equation.
Combat is Best Thought of as a Puzzle or Event:
Perhaps this is my 4e flag showing, but I've always
wanted combat to be this way. That's why 4e specialized in set-piece combats. Trash fights aren't interesting enough on their own; model logistical problems at the level of skills, SCs, and narrative, not as
combats.
GM and Player Intrusions Are Crucial: <snip> Likewise, GMs who like improv are well aware of the appeal of being able to throw interesting things into the mix on the fly.
Would you be willing to elaborate here? What things I have read do not present this in a light that was favorable to my tastes, so to speak. Even from people trying to praise it.
The point of a GM Intrusion is to make life more interesting for the players.
Perhaps I am just jaded. They come across to me as like the not-actually-Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times." That is, it is (or seems to be) a rules-sanctioned "screw over the player" mechanic, with an added guilt trip of "if you reject it, you're spending permanent XP for a temporary benefit AND not letting another player gain XP as well."
The analysis and descriptions of Intrusions in general just...don't give me that "this is an opportunity to take a risk and be MORE AWESOME" feeling. Instead it feels like a great way for a DM to yank my chain. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck...
But....that's how Cypher rolls. You have to look at it as an engine for creating verisimilitude in stories, and not procedurals for a more conventional style of game play.
I'm not sure I follow that, given the Intrusion mechanic by definition is anti-verisimilitudinous. Could you say more on this?