Monte Cook Games Announced Numenera 2: Discovery & Destiny!

Monte Cook Games has just announced - live at Gen Con in their first panel of the convention - it's latest Kickstarter, set to launch next month. And it's a big one - Numenera 2, consisting of two core books called Discovery (which revises player character options) and Destiny (which has systems for base building). It will be fully back-compatible with the original (2013) Numenera. More info as I hear it!

DHcS3lXXsAA6DD6.jpg

Photo courtesy Jon Smejkal

Facts coming through on social media:

  • "Numenera 2 is meant to replace the existing Core Book, but not the whole Numenera line. Feels like Numenera 1.5, but the Destiny book is new" - TPT's Shane on Twitter.



[video=youtube;NTa7jA98ClU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTa7jA98ClU[/video]
SaveSave
 

log in or register to remove this ad

msDarkSage

Villager
Well, I don't see information when the KS will be held, and knowing how fast KS products are being made, we can expect premiere in 2019, so it is not that close as in 3/3.5 (it is would be 6 years).
Personally I am interested what would be the content. First book dissapointed me for it lack of world description (just... could be more, instead of tons of space cyphers took and so many adventures). I will back it, but really hope they will put more fluff.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Aldarc

Legend
Thanks.

Hrm. That article is even harsher than I remember it being. And he makes a big point out of saying it's "too soon" when...this is the identical time frame between the Numenera 1/1.5 and 3.0/3.5! I am having a hard time reconciling what he wrote there, with this new revision of Numenera. I want to hear more before judging it though.
It's not quite identical in time difference. There was a 3-year difference between 3.0 and 3.5, and Numenera has been out for four years, with only the Kickstarter coming in the next month, as opposed to the actual product(s).

I think a big step in reconciling the two positions is in how he said in his article how 3.5 was always pre-planned from the beginning of 3.0 as a cash grab, whereas, in contrast, neither the Cypher System Rulebook nor Numenera 2 were planned as such. CSR came about as it became increasingly clear with the IPs, such as Numenera and The Strange, that a more solid (generic) backbone rules set was needed, if not advocated for by the fanbase. And I get the feeling that there have definitely been "lessons learned" from producing Numenera, The Strange, CSR, Gods of the Fall, Predation, and now Invisible Sun. I will be curious to hear more of their thoughts regarding what prompted this decision.

On the separate matter of Numenera Destiny's "Base Building," I kinda like this, if this turns out being what I think it is. One of my biggest gripes about a lot of RPG presumptions is the lack of "home" for the typical vagabond adventurers. They constantly adventure, but they rarely have or make a connection to any one place. (I suspect that this may be connected with why player characters often have dead families, are lone wolves, etc. They don't won't the GM to use that against them.) But I like the idea of the players building or investing in a place, especially for reinforcing the theme of using the past to build a better future in Numenera. It is why I have increasingly focused a lot of my adventures around a small town and have had the players live there. (Also, easier on the GM if you primarily have to worry about fleshing out one locale.) But this is speculation based on this tweet.

Also, I found this blog post that talks more about Numenera Discovery and Destiny. It seems like there will be a shift in expanding types and foci to allow for greater character customization and empowering the exploration and social pillars of the game. For example, the three new types seem focused on building a future: a scavenger, a crafter, and a community leader.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

turkeygiant

First Post
I hope this succeeds in making Numenera feel like its own thing. My biggest problem with ALL the cypher system games so far is that none of them feel like they make any mechanical changes to be their own thing. They are vastly different settings and content layered on a nearly uniform system that just isnt flexible enough to do justice to all these diverse types of stories.

I have never looked at a Cypher system game and thought it was THE system to run that game in over over a purposebuilt system for that genre.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It's not quite identical in time difference. There was a 3-year difference between 3.0 and 3.5, and Numenera has been out for four years, with only the Kickstarter coming in the next month, as opposed to the actual product(s).

No I am referring to what he says in the article. "Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea...It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005"

So, he objected to a revision in 2004 or 2005. That's the same time frame we're talking about with Numenera.

I think a big step in reconciling the two positions is in how he said in his article how 3.5 was always pre-planned from the beginning of 3.0 as a cash grab, whereas, in contrast, neither the Cypher System Rulebook nor Numenera 2 were planned as such.

I'm not sure that's accurate. It might be. But, it might be this was planned long ago. How are we to know? The 3.5 revision was planned before 3.0 went to print, but as Monte Cook says in that article, "See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning." So it was HIM revealing the "secret" the first time with 3.0/3.5. Why are we to assume there is not the same secret involved here, but nobody to actually reveal it because the only one privy to it is the very guy doing it?

CSR came about as it became increasingly clear with the IPs, such as Numenera and The Strange, that a more solid (generic) backbone rules set was needed, if not advocated for by the fanbase. And I get the feeling that there have definitely been "lessons learned" from producing Numenera, The Strange, CSR, Gods of the Fall, Predation, and now Invisible Sun. I will be curious to hear more of their thoughts regarding what prompted this decision.

Those are all similar to the party line stuff from WOTC on why they needed 3.5 for D&D. It took Monte Cook from the outside saying different, "A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source. That source was me. I was there."

Sorry, I think it's fair to have some doubts. His objections were very strong at the time, and it included the time frame repeatedly. I fail to see how those arguments don't apply to this? I mean, we could make excuses for niggling differences (it can't be identical), but the bottom line so far appears to be his thesis back then for objection to 3.5 could be just as easily applied to Numenera 1.5.

Maybe not. I am waiting to hear more. But I really do think it's fair to have some doubts on this one concerning the consistency of his positions on half-editions within this time frame of this type.
 

ArchfiendBobbie

First Post
Those are all similar to the party line stuff from WOTC on why they needed 3.5 for D&D. It took Monte Cook from the outside saying different, "A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source. That source was me. I was there."

Sorry, I think it's fair to have some doubts. His objections were very strong at the time, and it included the time frame repeatedly. I fail to see how those arguments don't apply to this? I mean, we could make excuses for niggling differences (it can't be identical), but the bottom line so far appears to be his thesis back then for objection to 3.5 could be just as easily applied to Numenera 1.5.

Maybe not. I am waiting to hear more. But I really do think it's fair to have some doubts on this one concerning the consistency of his positions on half-editions within this time frame of this type.

To be fair, Cook himself was speaking in anger a lot during that period. He did not have a good relationship with WotC or Hasbro during that period, and it showed in a lot of his writings from the time. This was one of them, and I do suspect that relationship colored his viewpoints a bit and had him saying things he later came to regret.

At this time, I would not be surprised if he didn't hold the opposite viewpoint, having experienced what it's like from the publisher side. So time and age might have made him conclude his earlier statements were mistakes, and he's been led to learn from them.

That is the problem with the idea of consistent views: It's very much not human to hold the same view for much of your life. People grow, change, and sometimes come to conclude the very thing they railed against in their youth isn't bad or even is something they should do. That is what might have happened with Cook.

Incidentally, remember when I called him a bad apple and a troll king? You quoted some of the statements that are why I said such. His statements fueled some of the nastier fights on the WotC forums during the 3.0 vs. 3.5 edition wars, and helped fuel the later 3E vs. 4E edition wars when some of the 3.0 people sided with the 4E people to gloat and troll the 3.5 people. Basically, he helped build the foundation of the nastiest internal dispute I have ever seen in the DnD community.

So, yeah. You're kinda bringing up the basics of a very nasty edition war that I hope to never see spark here.
 

Aldarc

Legend
No I am referring to what he says in the article. "Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea...It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005"

So, he objected to a revision in 2004 or 2005. That's the same time frame we're talking about with Numenera.

I'm not sure that's accurate. It might be. But, it might be this was planned long ago. How are we to know? The 3.5 revision was planned before 3.0 went to print, but as Monte Cook says in that article, "See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning." So it was HIM revealing the "secret" the first time with 3.0/3.5. Why are we to assume there is not the same secret involved here, but nobody to actually reveal it because the only one privy to it is the very guy doing it?

Those are all similar to the party line stuff from WOTC on why they needed 3.5 for D&D. It took Monte Cook from the outside saying different, "A few weeks ago, in an interview at gamingreport.com I said that 3.5 was motivated by financial need rather than by design need -- in short, to make money rather than because the game really needed an update. I said that I had this information from a reliable source. That source was me. I was there."

Sorry, I think it's fair to have some doubts. His objections were very strong at the time, and it included the time frame repeatedly. I fail to see how those arguments don't apply to this? I mean, we could make excuses for niggling differences (it can't be identical), but the bottom line so far appears to be his thesis back then for objection to 3.5 could be just as easily applied to Numenera 1.5.

Maybe not. I am waiting to hear more. But I really do think it's fair to have some doubts on this one concerning the consistency of his positions on half-editions within this time frame of this type.
The wording of your post hints at a lot of prejudices against Cook. It does not read as someone giving him the benefit of doubt, but as someone with a predetermined judgment looking for the chance to cast their scathing verdict of indictment.
 



Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top