>>47777643

I went in with a group who all thought it looked good, but ultimately we found it too simplistic and progression unsatisfying, having come from DnD 3.5e. In the pursuit of trying to streamline the game, a lot of the mechanical complexity we found engaging was lost.

Like a peanut butter and fluff sandwich, only you fucked up and got extra smooth and creamy peanut butter so now its just overly sweet with no real crunch or substance. Seems like a nice departure from PB&J but ultimately doesn't add too much and you get sick of it pretty fast.

>>47777643
I only experienced character creation and the start of an adventure.

My impression was that it was trying to integrate elements of d20 and FATE, to the detriment of both.

Character creation was incredibly unsatisfying. After picking one of 3 classes you chose a couple of aspect-y/feat-y things from a finite list that used a largely meaningless adjective and gave some kind of limited mechanical bonus. I also think there were three or so attributes. I think they were randomly rolled.

If I was in love with the setting I'd try running it with something else.

>>47777643
Good idea, poor execution, really odd design choices.

you have 3 kind of HP
when 1 of those hp hit 0, you are boned
your powerfull abilities cost hp
your experience is mostly to reduce hp cost of abilities

having more than 2-3 dose of shitty antidote can literaly make you explode

too simple and not enough character choices at chargen, didnt like it

>>47777643
We like it, but we aren't slaves to balance.

>>47777643

Neat setting, somewhat iffy system. My GM has informed me that it is literally the easiest system he has ever ran though, which is a point in it's favor.

As expected of a Monte Cooke system, it has some balance issues, mostly in that there are some focuses and descriptors that are terrible/actively negative, or some that are trap options.

The way XP works by default is so terrible, because the XP system has two uses: leveling (or acquiring other permanent benefits) or rerolling, rejecting GM interventions, and other short term benefits. But if you ever spend XP on anything other than leveling or another permanent benefit, you are just gimping your character forever. Nothing feels worse than rerolling a 1 that would have killed you into another one, forcing you to spend another xp to reroll again. Half a level down the drain right there. Unfortunately, the system functions on the players ability and willingness to do these things.

The suggested fix is to separate short term and long term xp. Long term XP awarded for solving adventures or whatnot, short term xp as normally obtained via GM interventions.

Also, Armor is broken. The first few adventures I was in, I never got hurt more than a little bit, because whenever I was attacked I took 0-1 damage.

The rotating cypher system is neat in theory, but really just ends in a perpetual state of "too cool to use" syndrome. So we hold on to all these high damage cyphers and don't use them, but we can't collect more because of the stupid arbitrary cypher limit.

It is also very possible to break the system in half, I am currently playing a character for whom "impossible" tasks are trivial at Tier 2. I can casually break down mountains with my fists because that is the highest difficulty rating something can have, and I can hit that mark more than 50% of the time.

Despite it's flaws though, it is still pretty fun. Just particularly bear in mind the XP fix.

>>47778196
>My impression was that it was trying to integrate elements of d20 and FATE, to the detriment of both.

This is accurate.

Monte Cook seems to really like the ideas of games like FATE--GM intrusions are basically FATE compels, just with less grounding in players' attributes--but didn't seem willing to leave behind a bunch of d20 assumptions in making his game about stories and exploration. It has some neat ideas but I think it fundamentally fails to execute on a lot of them.

My favorite part is how you can fully generate a character with one sentence: "I am an <adjective> <noun> who <verbs>." That's pretty cool. But it doesn't really carry on the same fluidity from there and that's a shame.

>>47781253
I find FATE's approach too forced, actually, but I'm old school, and find the idea of dominating Player Agency unattractive.

Awesome fluff; system that seems really freeing and interesting when you hear about it and glance at the rules...

And then really boring to play, mechanically. I'm blessed with a great storyteller GM who is as good at CoC mystery and horror as he is at D&D and we've been playing for years together, but he was right there with us players when it came to feeling let down.

Cool world though.

>>47777643
Really dislike the Fluff of the world. Found 'The Strange' it's sister system which runs on the exact same rules to be much more interesting.

I liked the system itself. A lot people harp too much on cypher limits meanwhile artifact limits ... aren't. There are lots of perfectly fine tier 1 artifact that you can just toss out. Chance to keep on-use artifacts sits much better with players than the use-and-lose cyphers.

>>47781179
>Also, Armor is broken. The first few adventures I was in, I never got hurt more than a little bit, because whenever I was attacked I took 0-1 damage.
I think 0-1 is an exaggeration but yeah. Numenera's armor is busted. Use Cypher's Core armor, it's fixed in better ways.