Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8803645" data-attributes="member: 6790260">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.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.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.I find this interesting, as it leans toward things I also like. What makes this difference? Why is it a "mysteries" system?Gonna be honest, I genuinely don't grok what you're saying here.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?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.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.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.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.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...I'm not sure I follow that, given the Intrusion mechanic by definition is anti-verisimilitudinous. Could you say more on this?</blockquote>

Verification