Numenera: Adventures in the Ninth World

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

*Sigh* It wasn't so much that everything about 4e was bad, it was that the way everything was put together made me want to punch a dryad in 4e. In particular, the heavy reliance of miniatures and movement on the grid made for extremely plodding combat. You could have everything planned out to a nicety, and then someone else would push or pull one or more enemies or allies ahead of you on initiative, and you had to recalculate everything again. It made us all want to bang our heads on the wall.

The cypher system in Numenera is indeed somewhat like daily powers in 4e, but they are assigned randomly, and can have what would otherwise be considered game-breaking effects in any other system. And that's totally ok. You can have anything from the equivalent of a healing potion to a miniature singularity, and the game can roll on merrily without it being "unbalanced," because you get different cyphers every time.

Also, unlike 4e, you could have a party of all one "class" with very little difficulty. As Campbell said, the Numenera classes are much more generalist. It doesn't matter if you lack a controller or a defender, because it's possible for multiple people to fill those sorts of roles, plus more. And yet you still feel very unique as a character with the system of descriptors and foci.

 

[dm4hire]

There are subtle, but important distinctions that I feel make certain elements more palatable in their Numenera incarnation.

• Ciphers place "Everyone has dailies" squarely in the fiction in a way that is much easier to handle for the metagame averse.
• Numenera is not balanced on the level of the individual encounter, and encourages GMs to make rulings for special cases. Still the level of variance in any given arena of the game is fairly minor because Numenera PCs are more generalists than specialists. Extremely situational abilities are tied to a character's focus rather than type. It's more okay to deny the game's equivalent of sneak attack because it does not feature as prominently as it does for a 4e rogue for example.

I have to disagree with the view that Numenera are in effect dailies. They are purely one shot abilities that could become available again or may never happen. It will depend on how your GM runs it. If player X uses a Numenera to defeat the callerail and the party is able to recover another Numenera from the corpse then that player, if he receives it and I'm sure most will allow him to, then in essence he didn't lose his Numenera when going into the next battle; it only changed function. Numenera are meant to be found and used, how often they are found as I mentioned is up to the GM. Monte stresses that it is an important part of the game for Numenera to constantly change throughout the story. It definitely keeps the game interesting.

Comparing the game to 4e is pointless in that I can compare 4e to 3e due to the similarities they have. I can also compare 3e to 2e and so on. Numenera takes the d20 back bone and makes it its own thing. It works. When I said earlier that Numenera is nothing like 4e I didn't mean that it didn't have commonalities to it. An apple and an orange are both fruit, have seeds, and grow on a tree, that's about as far as it goes for comparison. The same holds true with Numenera, which is definitely its own game.

 

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

There are also some similarities with the 4e second wind in terms of recovery. Other than in very specific instances (a couple of the Foci, and a few of the cyphers) there isn't really any other way of healing yourself in Numenera other than time (and someone skilled in healing). You can make recovery rolls at various intervals - a single action, ten minutes, an hour, and ten hours (the setting has 28-hour days), allowing you to heal up on the fly, at least in some instances.

But with Armor treated as damage reduction, plus the ability to dodge, you are fairly tough to kill.

 

[Jhaelen]

An apple and an orange are both fruit, have seeds, and grow on a tree, that's about as far as it goes for comparison.

Yeah, well, that's what I've been wondering: If 4e is an orange, is Numenera then really more like an apple or a grapefruit? But anyway, just keep describing it and provide details you like (or don't like) about it, please!

 

[Campbell]

Yeah, well, that's what I've been wondering: If 4e is an orange, is Numenera then really more like an apple or a grapefruit? But anyway, just keep describing it and provide details you like (or don't like) about it, please!

Some things I like:

• Players determine their own fictional positioning. The game rules define what a character is capable of, but don't dictate the source of their abilities. In each type writeup some suggestions are made, but it's ultimately up to the player to decide. For example a glaive could be precognitive who sees the entire violent struggle in his mind's eye before swords are drawn, a dedicated martial artist, the next leap in evolution, a cyborg, etc.
• Each major step in character creation urges players to define something about their character. These come in little snippets that don't overdo it and leave plenty of room to elaborate on.
• Resources are roughly consistant across character types, and types are more generally competent than classes are in most games. This should make the game more resilient to a various types of adventures. This is a big deal to me. I tend to play in and run games where it might not make much sense to have a 3-4 encounters in a fictional day.
• The game's emphasis on fictional positioning. Your pool points are precious and the game's base difficulties are steep enough that players really need to focus on taking advantage of the environment. This is supported by a framework of rules that supports working with the other players.
• No resource management or dice rolling for the GM. I'm really looking forward to this. I like to focus on what I consider the essentials of GMing : scene framing, characterization, and narration. I don't like paperwork. I don't want to worry about keeping too much track on the state of NPCs when they are off screen other than from a narrative stand point.
• There's strong "fractal design" at work here. The way players interact with all elements of the game seems similar. I really like how the same system elements used to simulate a flanking maneuver can also handle a good cop, bad cop exchange.
• Invincible sword princesses need not apply. I like that it's not possible to be a complete dodge monkey and that characters really need to think about pressing on even if they have taken no Might damage.

My Concerns:

• I'm not sure how my players will react to mechanical resources being tied to their health track. I hope this doesn't lead to the same extreme turtling I saw when we played Exalted.
• It's going to take some doing to convince my players that in the long run shorter term XP expenditures are worth it.
• I'm not sure if the rules will be satisfying to some of my more rules savvy players.
• The base system seems well tuned, but some of the character options, especially in later tiers, seem like they could have used another development pass or two.
• It seems like the game really presses you to bring your A game from both sides of the screen. With no solid mini-game elements you can't really throw up any mechanical distractions - you have to be on the ball. I consider this overall to be a good thing, but it means I'll have to be more selective with players.

 

[Campbell]

I have to disagree with the view that Numenera are in effect dailies. They are purely one shot abilities that could become available again or may never happen. It will depend on how your GM runs it. If player X uses a Numenera to defeat the callerail and the party is able to recover another Numenera from the corpse then that player, if he receives it and I'm sure most will allow him to, then in essence he didn't lose his Numenera when going into the next battle; it only changed function. Numenera are meant to be found and used, how often they are found as I mentioned is up to the GM. Monte stresses that it is an important part of the game for Numenera to constantly change throughout the story. It definitely keeps the game interesting.

Comparing the game to 4e is pointless in that I can compare 4e to 3e due to the similarities they have. I can also compare 3e to 2e and so on. Numenera takes the d20 back bone and makes it its own thing. It works. When I said earlier that Numenera is nothing like 4e I didn't mean that it didn't have commonalities to it. An apple and an orange are both fruit, have seeds, and grow on a tree, that's about as far as it goes for comparison. The same holds true with Numenera, which is definitely its own game.

I think a good deal of the disconnect here is that I'm not really looking at the game from a player's perspective. From the vantage of this perspective GM ciphers seem to play the role that dailies played in 4e. Granted, there are important distinctions, but that's the issue with analogies - they don't map out perfectly. I like that they have a more dramatic effect and basically recharge as the pace of the game requires it. Guess I probably should brush up on my communication skills. International Finance has left me in a sour mood.