There's A New Edition Of The Cypher System Coming

Next year, 2026, Monte Cook Games will be releasing a new edition of its in-house Cypher System rules system.

Originally launched over a decade ago, the Cypher System powers games like Numenera, The Strange, and The Magnus Archives. It's a d20-based multi-genre game system known for its character generation method which has the player filling out the sentence "I am a [adjective] [noun] who [verb]" -- such as "I am a jovial Explorer who howls at the moon". The titular cyphers are one-time use abilities or items. Task resolution involves rolling a d20 against a 1-10 difficulty scale.

This new edition includes a bunch of changes, including genre-specific character creation, character damage and armour, and a greater emphasis on subtle cyphers.

Two new core rulebooks will be published. The Cypher Character Rulebook will delve into creating characters for a variety of different genres, while the Cypher GM's Guide will contain rules, GM advice and resources for creating and running games.

They'll be hitting a crowdfunding platform near you very soon, in late summer, with the books coming out mid-2026.

​

 

[prabe]

Yes, I am sure.

My wife got invited into a Cypher game, and the GM gave her that pitch - "it is a lot like Fate!". She came back, and reported, "This plays nothing like Fate!"

Since then, I've run some Old Gods of Appalachia, which is Cypher. And, while some folks may draw analogs between intrusions and the character description sentence, it plays and runs nothing like Fate. The play experiences are not similar.

Cypher is, at its heart, a traditional RPG. The occasional GM intrusion doesn't make it particularly "narrative focused". Adventures have traditional structure and clear definition before the session of play begins. The system rewards the player turning to the well-defined picklist of abilities and effects defined on the sheet.

Fate is, as its heart, much more freewheeling. The GM can step into a session with very little definition, and lean on compels and success at minor/serious cost to build much of the session content for them. The system rewards players interacting with the situation in genre style over consulting numbers on a character sheet.

Don't get me wrong, I like Cypher, at least for genres in which the minor magic items of "cyphers" make sense. I like Old Gods of Appalachia, especially. But it does not play like Fate.

As much as Intrusions felt like Compels to me, I agree completely that Cypher does not play at all like Fate. I don't believe I said it did. (Others do seem to be arguing that it does.)

EDIT: In fact, I kinda strongly disagree with people comparing the way Cypher's characters are summed up in a sentence with Fate's Aspects. They don't work or feel at all alike to me.

 

[Umbran]

I don't believe I said it did. (Others do seem to be arguing that it does.)

Yep. I was responding to other folks, not you. Carry on!

 

[Gradine]

there is an entire section (14 pages) in the revised rulebook which breaks down every single ability into tiers and gives guidance on how to build your own custom foci.

I will have to checked out the revised rulebook then. I can't speak to all of the supplements and third-party stuff, but that level of guidance and empowerment to created your own focus is I think all that's really needed.

 

[Jeffzilla]

EDIT: In fact, I kinda strongly disagree with people comparing the way Cypher's characters are summed up in a sentence with Fate's Aspects. They don't work or feel at all alike to me.

I'm willing to split the baby: Cypher shares some general design elements with Fate while its game mechanics and resolution system are completely different.

More specifically, both systems have a meta-currency which players can acquire by agreeing to accept certain roleplaying cues and can spend to enhance dice results or power character abilities, while the way this is implemented differentiates the two systems somewhat.

That said, though, I'd be hard pressed to say that the two games are very much alike. They share some DNA. People who point the similarities out are making a valid point, but so are those pointing out that they're also very different systems.

 

[Jeffzilla]

I will have to checked out the revised rulebook then. I can't speak to all of the supplements and third-party stuff, but that level of guidance and empowerment to created your own focus is I think all that's really needed.

Honestly, this part of the revised book was really hard for me to understand upon first read-through, but once it clicked and I realized just how customizable characters in Cypher system could be, it's also the chapter which made me want to stop reading Cypher and start playing it.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Ok so, I've read that the system is primarily combat-focused, lacks rules depth and barely has any rules for making setting exploration interesting.

Thoughts?

This is utter bull hookey. Laughably wrong.

Here is why =

* There are over a thousand Abilities/Foci and thousands of Cyphers. Both run the gamut of social, combat, explore, mystery, revelation and more.

* The rules are by and large the same as any common system, such as D&D, GURPS, BRP, VtM, etc. You have extensive rules for everything from grappling to having sex. From dealing with location features like zero-g to all manners of poisons, illness, and curses. If anything Cypher veers into tooo many rules.

* Exploration is likely the most dynamic and diverse of all the rules and Cypher is one of the systems that does it better than most. So much so that it goes beyond western Europe and deals with any possible strange environments = its surreal game settings and odd cyphers make for both narrative and mechanical exploration that D&D could never even come close to performing. There are rules on horror and intrigue and uncovering ruins, all of which are tied to a very very diverse and robust Target Number system, with a number of Special Circumstance or Ability rules for... well, everything.


I can go into specific details on a given scenario of concern if that is needed....

 

[Morrus]

I've already seen at least one other person - the first to respond to my questions - compare Cypher to FATE soooooooooo

You haven't played the game. You asked people for their opinion. People who have played the game gave it. You told them they're wrong.

What's that about? Did you forget how to spell "thank you"?

 

[Bolongo]

Speaking as a GM, what made me bounce hard off Cypher was mainly the vague and handwavy monster design.
Which I haven't seen any comments about, but it seems a pretty core thing to the game and unlikely to change...

 

[ruemere]

As I said, superficially similar. Quoting materials that I know intimately well does little to dissuade me of that.

I think that @Umbran's point still stands.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Just in case I need to explain my joke: I have defined similarity in terms from PbtA using moves. My point was that the mechanic was hardly unique. I have explicitly tried to emphasize this by adding the statement about focusing on similarities.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, I am sure.

My wife got invited into a Cypher game, and the GM gave her that pitch - "it is a lot like Fate!". She came back, and reported, "This plays nothing like Fate!"

Since then, I've run some Old Gods of Appalachia, which is Cypher. And, while some folks may draw analogs between intrusions and the character description sentence, it plays and runs nothing like Fate. The play experiences are not similar.

Cypher is, at its heart, a traditional RPG. The occasional GM intrusion doesn't make it particularly "narrative focused". Adventures have traditional structure and clear definition before the session of play begins. The system rewards the player turning to the well-defined picklist of abilities and effects defined on the sheet.

Fate is, as its heart, much more freewheeling. The GM can step into a session with very little definition, and lean on compels and success at minor/serious cost to build much of the session content for them. The system rewards players interacting with the situation in genre style over consulting numbers on a character sheet.

Don't get me wrong, I like Cypher, at least for genres in which the minor magic items of "cyphers" make sense. I like Old Gods of Appalachia, especially. But it does not play like Fate.

Agreed.

I enjoy Numenera. However, I have heard a number of Cypher enthusiasts (wrongly) describe the game as a "narrative game" or a "story game," but what they really mean is the GM can focus more easily on the adventure/world/story since the GM side of the rules is pretty light. That doesn't make it a "narrative game." Much as you say, the GM is very much a traditional GM, and Cypher System plays very much like a traditional RPG. However, I would describe the Cypher System as Neo-Trad.

GM Intrusions were basically designed for "critical fumbles" on a 1 and "fudging" in the absence of the GM rolling dice. They don't really have the same purpose or function as compelled aspects in Fate. I don't think that the Intrusion sub-system makes the Cypher System a "narrative game" anymore than the GM playing with critical fumbles on a 1, GM fudging, and Inspiration makes 2014 5e D&D a "narrative game."