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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7754742" data-attributes="member: 5142">While you are at, how about asking me if I'm still beating my wife? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /> That's fine. So maybe it is obvious for you, but this is not always clear for me. When I look at some of my past groups, whether as a player or at the helm as the GM, then I have generally seen all players attempting to contribute to the best of their abilities. The bard in one group was a wet noodle in combat, but they were contributing. In the Cypher System? Probably, though the Cobra Cult example was for Fate, which uses milestones and not XP. But if your "fighters" (glaives) fought to get to that relic, the "rogue" (jack) found the relic, and then the "wizard" (nano) identified it, then who made the discovery possible? That's why Numenera favors giving XP to the group. There is a team effort to get to that point. If one player character was alone when they ventured off and then found and identified that relic, then yeah I would probably award them with an XP for that. But then I would probably then offset that by maybe throwing out GM Intrusions for other characters. But that's just a reality of players: some players are proactive while others prefer being reactive. Yeah, and the Cypher System also contributed to my views regarding the hyperinflated numbers of XP. But it becomes easy if you want to adjust the required XP for each level. So it may take 4 XP per benefit to get from Tier 1 to 2, but you may decide for your games that it will now take 6 XP per benefit to get from Tier 2 to Tier 3. But determining what is appropriate for your games may require playing several longer campaigns to see how pacing as written would be for your table. FYI, the guiding mechanic of the Cypher System is that the GM assigns a difficulty of 0-10 and multiplies that number by 3 to determine the Target Number. The Target Number is the number that the players have to beat on a d20 roll. So for example, if the Difficulty is 5, then the players have to roll a 15 or higher to succeed. But unlike 3e+ D&D, final resolution happens on the roll result and not after. The Cypher System is not "roll d20 + player modifiers = result". Instead the GM establishes base TN and then the player attempts to lower that difficulty with their various resources, and then they have to beat that number on a d20 roll. One of the benefits of this system is that this places greater tension on the die roll and that tension is not lost in the calculations of "I rolled a 10, plus my combined +5 strength/proficiency bonus, plus +1 bonus from my magic sword. That is a 16 total. Do I hit? [and all eyes turn to the GM]" In the Cypher System, you know your success as soon as you roll. As you can imagine, if you are facing a task/monster with a difficulty of 7+, then you are dealing with Target Numbers that are 21 to 30, which you can't reach naturally on a d20 roll. Hence the players have means to lower that Difficulty/TN. So players have a number of tools at their disposal to lower the required Difficulty roll for them. For starters, players have skills (e.g., climbing, knowledge). If they are trained in a skill, they can lower that Difficulty by 1. And if they are specialized in a skill, they can lower that Difficulty by 2. So through skills, they can lower the Target Number from 3-6. So if a player was specialized in climbing, they could turn a Difficulty 5 task into a Difficulty 3 task. In other words, they would go from needing to roll a 15 or higher to needing to roll a 9 or higher. But players may also have assets. An "asset" is just a thing or circumstance that helps make things easier (e.g., books for knowledge, rope for climbing, shields for defense), which also can reduce the Difficulty by 1. Players also have Effort. Players can a spend points from one of their relevant ability/HP pools (Might, Speed, Intellect) to expend Effort to lower that difficulty further. Effort has a minimum point value per level of Effort you choose to apply, but players are capped by how much effort they can apply, which is determined by tier level or whether you have advanced your character with that 4 XP for the next grade of Effort. Certain abilities and powers can also lower the difficulty. I realize that this may sound complicated, but I assure you that it is remarkably intuitive. But if you notice, the only real involvement that the DM has here in is in establishing the Difficulty/TN, which is as simple as 0-10, though the DM may also be required to provide discretion whether the players may have additional assets (e.g., the high ground in combat). Monsters are created by essentially just establishing a Difficulty. If players are facing a Difficulty 3 monster, the players have to roll 9 or higher to hit, 9 or higher to defend themselves from its attacks, and its attacks do 3 damage (from its difficulty). The GM does not roll. The rest is on the players. The players roll everything, including their defense rolls. The players are mustering their character resources for success. And this is all a long-winded way of saying that monsters are sometimes much higher than the players' pay grade so getting around the monster becomes the puzzle between you and the discovery. To a certain degree, this system weirdly operates under - what is presumably my impression of - an Old School mentality. But you are going for discovering neat stuff to bring back and not gold. You are facing creatures and oddities you can't necessarily beat, and so you have to work around that. You are playing a game that involves the managing and attrition of player resources. Yeah, it's somewhat counterintuitive. And I have seen people propose some alternate mechanics or different types of pools: XP for character advancement and "XP" for PC in-narrative spending. Derek Smalls is the bassist. Nigel Tufnel is the lead guitarist. I am saying that "fudging" operates as cheating de facto though not cheating de jure. Per Law it may not be, but  per Practice it fundamentally is. Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s use of the phrase "institutionalized cheating." And I think that this distinction is likely causing a lot of the frustration in this discussion. I went to Matt Colville's subreddit the other day. There was a thread there about DMs cheating/fudging, though centered around Puffin Forest's video "Should the DM Cheat in D&D?" From my sense of his fanbase, many of the players attracted to Matt Colville's game style tend to be grognards. So sticking my head in the thread for a gander, I was naturally expecting more of the same as here. But not once was I able to find there the phrase "the DM/GM can't cheat." Instead, there was a thread-wide recognition in place that on an essential level, that fudging is a mode of cheating. Some were putting a negative spin on this (e.g., "I don't cheat/fudge!) while others were not ("I cheat as a DM."). Some were talking about how cheating is sometimes necessary by the DM, but others were speaking against the practice. Even those who think that cheating is within the powers of the DM used the language of cheating as the natural language of the discourse. "Cheat/ing" was the predominate word used for this sort of "rules engagement" by the DM. Now before dismissing everyone in that thread as being "wrong" or using "incorrect terms," it's worth considering why other people outside of this forum find "cheating" the natural word choice for this discussion.</blockquote>

Verification