Quote from: Bill;696082Bad things just happen, and I see no need for an xp reward for that.

The XP award applies when the GM chooses to hose you down.

The closest example I can think of is from Mutants & Masterminds where the GM can make your life complicated in return for a Hero Point.

Quote from: dbm;696086The XP award applies when the GM chooses to hose you down.

The closest example I can think of is from Mutants & Masterminds where the GM can make your life complicated in return for a Hero Point.

I guess I don't really like Hero points either

The reason why you have GM intrusion in this game is as follows.

1)  Random rolls aren't really done in combat as much as, say, a D&D game--in fact in 99% of all cases the players do all the rolls.  The bad guys, for instance, always do the same amount of damage based on their level.  GM intrusion is meant to add variety to encounters and situations instead of making it the result of dice-rolls, and meant for the GM to be active instead of just relying on dice.

2)  XP in this game is actually meant to be spent on short-term gains as well as long-term ones.  That means you need to give away a lot of it.

3)  Gameplay wise, it's meant to give a sense of equality in the game to players and GMs--for instance, the 1XP for the Player, and 1XP for the player's choice of his peers, as well as giving the player the option to avoid the complication by spending an XP.  I think it's meant to help involve all parties in creating the story, shared experience, and setting for their game.

This may not be everybody's cup of tea, but the way the rules are written as a whole, this makes a lot of sense for this specific game.

Quote from: JRT;696090The reason why you have GM intrusion in this game is as follows.

1)  Random rolls aren't really done in combat as much as, say, a D&D game--in fact in 99% of all cases the players do all the rolls.  The bad guys, for instance, always do the same amount of damage based on their level.  GM intrusion is meant to add variety to encounters and situations instead of making it the result of dice-rolls, and meant for the GM to be active instead of just relying on dice.

Why does the gm not rolling prevent the gm from telling the players what is happening in the game? isn't this Intrusion just the way most rpgs are played anyway?

Quote from: JRT;6960902)  XP in this game is actually meant to be spent on short-term gains as well as long-term ones.  That means you need to give away a lot of it.

I guess I don't mind that, if everyone gets the same amount of xp.

Quote from: JRT;6960903)  Gameplay wise, it's meant to give a sense of equality in the game to players and GMs--for instance, the 1XP for the Player, and 1XP for the player's choice of his peers, as well as giving the player the option to avoid the complication by spending an XP.  I think it's meant to help involve all parties in creating the story, shared experience, and setting for their game.

I don't think any of that is needed for people to be involved. As for equality, I would assume everyone is equal in regards to being part of the game, but the gm is not equal. The gm is the final authority.

Quote from: JRT;696090This may not be everybody's cup of tea, but the way the rules are written as a whole, this makes a lot of sense for this specific game.

I admit it seems very unusual to me. I would have to play to get a feel for it.

I think something of note here is how easy it is to 'wing it' and improvise running Numenera - it is a dream to GM. So the chance of going 'off script' or the players taking you somewhere unexpected is very high. Higher than in other games systems where it might take too much GM effort to whip up situations and encounters.

When you are in this more free-form way of playing the GMI mechanic allows you to feel OK as the GM when you make life hard for the players. You are compensating them for the adversity at the same time.

That was my experience when I ran the game, at least.

Quote from: dbm;696101I think something of note here is how easy it is to 'wing it' and improvise running Numenera - it is a dream to GM. So the chance of going 'off script' or the players taking you somewhere unexpected is very high. Higher than in other games systems where it might take too much GM effort to whip up situations and encounters.

When you are in this more free-form way of playing the GMI mechanic allows you to feel OK as the GM when you make life hard for the players. You are compensating them for the adversity at the same time.

That was my experience when I ran the game, at least.

I am all for ease of play for the gm, and I have a friend that will run Numenara at some point, so I will have a chance to play.

But I can't say I like the idea of compensating palyers for messing with them.
Perhaps when I play I will change my mind.

Setting looks very cool.

Quote from: Bill;696102But I can't say I like the idea of compensating palyers for messing with them.
Perhaps when I play I will change my mind.

Players get XP for being messed with in D&D; they defeat monsters (killing and looting or avoiding and stealing) which equals XP.

I think the real difference is there's more transparency about fucking with the players. In theory, yes, it seems like some form of entitlement, but in play it's really fairly normal.

Quote from: Brad;696104Players get XP for being messed with in D&D; they defeat monsters (killing and looting or avoiding and stealing) which equals XP.

I think the real difference is there's more transparency about fucking with the players. In theory, yes, it seems like some form of entitlement, but in play it's really fairly normal.

I do group xp or preferably no xp when I gm.

But I get what you are saying.

Quote from: Bill;696106I do group xp or preferably no xp when I gm.

But I get what you are saying.

In general, I'm with you on that; we rarely use the official XP system in a game. But the XP system in Numenera is pretty cool, with several different types of things to spend them on other than 'levelling up'.

One of the players in my game was characterising his PC as a bit Aspergers - always counting stuff. So he spent 2XP on a limited / circumstantial skill of 'counting stuff' to add flavour to his character. And I played along by giving him accurate pace counts when he was walking through an underground complex. It was fun and added to the game.

Yes, you can just make these things up or play them with no mechanics (and to start with, he did). But we found it added to the play experience when there was some mechanical weight attached to what he was doing.

Quote from: Bill;696088I guess I don't really like Hero points either

I'm a fan of Numenera, but if you don't like hero/fate/moxie points or that general category of mechanics then you're probably not going to like the way Numenera handles XP: It blends the metagame mechanics of advancement points and fate points from other games into a single pool so that it can do some interesting stuff with the synergy that results.

Quote from: Bill;696102But I can't say I like the idea of compensating palyers for messing with them. Perhaps when I play I will change my mind.

The basic function of a GM intrusion is to provide a mechanism for the GM to make things a lot worse than the mechanics of the game would normally suggest.

Example: A huge crab creature lurches out of the water and hurtles down towards a PC, seeking to crush them under its body. The PC attempts a Speed defense, but fails: The crab lands on them... and I use a GM intrusion to say that not only did the crab land on them, but the PC's spear (which they held up in an effort to spear the thing) caught on its armor-like shell and snapped in half.

Example: I'm trying to help someone interpret the cipher on a map we found, but I blow my role. The GM makes an intrusion to say that not only did I fail to help them, I also manage to clutzily spill the water I was drinking all over it.

It should be noted that intrusions don't only happen on failures. For example, a PC might smash their axe into the side of a robot... and (GM intrusion) the axe sticks in its side, so that as the robot lurches away from them it takes their axe with it.

You ever play at a table where a roll of natural 1 means that something really horrible above-and-beyond a normal failure happened? This is the same thing. (Literally: A natural 1 results in a free GM intrusion.) Except it also provides a structure for extending and broadening that concept.

I had a similar reaction to your when I first heard about the mechanic. But seeing it in actual play has made a convert of me: If you've ever had the experience of having a cool idea (like a character's axe getting stuck in the side of a dragon because they hit it so incredibly hard) and then rejecting it because it's kind of a bullshit move and feels unnecessarily punitive to your players... well, GM intrusion greases the wheel for it.

These rules can also be used by the GM whenever they feel that a strict interpretation of the mechanics don't make logical sense in the game world. An example given in the rulebook is when a player says, "I can totally turn my back on that guy with the sword and do something while completely ignoring him because he's already taken his turn." The GM doesn't think that makes sense, so he uses an intrusion to let the NPC make an extra attack that they wouldn't normally get.  This allows the rule system to keep things simple without trying to patch over holes in the abstraction (like AD&D or D&D3 do, for example), because it empowers the GM to fill those holes on-the-fly.

You could certainly argue that the GM in any system should be able to just give NPCs extra attacks if they feel like it. But GM intrusions not only smooth over the process; they also give the players the ability to say "no, I really think my character is fast enough that he should be able to do this without letting that guy hit him" or "I'm experienced enough with my axe, that I know how to twist it free before the dragon carries it away" within the structures of the rules (by spending an XP to refuse the intrusion).

QuoteI had a similar reaction to your when I first heard about the mechanic. But seeing it in actual play has made a convert of me: If you've ever had the experience of having a cool idea (like a character's axe getting stuck in the side of a dragon because they hit it so incredibly hard) and then rejecting it because it's kind of a bullshit move and feels unnecessarily punitive to your players... well, GM intrusion greases the wheel for it.

These rules can also be used by the GM whenever they feel that a strict interpretation of the mechanics don't make logical sense in the game world. An example given in the rulebook is when a player says, "I can totally turn my back on that guy with the sword and do something while completely ignoring him because he's already taken his turn." The GM doesn't think that makes sense, so he uses an intrusion to let the NPC make an extra attack that they wouldn't normally get. This allows the rule system to keep things simple without trying to patch over holes in the abstraction (like AD&D or D&D3 do, for example), because it empowers the GM to fill those holes on-the-fly.

Nailed it.  The DM screws the players, but the players get something in return.  I like it.  For the people whining about WHY CAN'T THE GM DO THAT ANYWAY: well, of course, he can, it's just that it's suggested that he not.  I've played in games where the DM regularly screwed the players, and it gets old fast.  I think the GM intrusion is a good way to handle it.

"These rules can also be used by the GM whenever they feel that a strict interpretation of the mechanics don't make logical sense in the game world"


I have been handling that for 25 years just fine.

Bend the rules when they fail.


Adding mechanics to it seems bad to me.


But I will reassess after I play Numenara.


I am an immerssion type of player, so I want less mechanics, not more, generally.




Afterthought
I think what bugs me is the 'stepping out of the game to mention the intrusion IS an intrusion'

Quote from: Bill;696106I do group xp or preferably no xp when I gm.

But I get what you are saying.

Yeah, I'm right there with you; at first I thought it was intrusive and annoying. But when you play it out, it's fun and it works.

Quote from: Bill;696291I am an immerssion type of player, so I want less mechanics, not more, generally.

Afterthought
I think what bugs me is the 'stepping out of the game to mention the intrusion IS an intrusion'

I'm feeling the same.
It sounds like another game shoving in rules for stuff I already do without issue... reversing the 'mother may I' some whine about onto the GM, "oh, can I pleeeaase make something interesting happen to your character today?"

I'm sure I'm getting it wrong but that's what it sound like... the GM negotiating with the Player to let him play his part in the action.

Quote from: Bill;696291Afterthought
I think what bugs me is the 'stepping out of the game to mention the intrusion IS an intrusion'

*Shrug* I have never had my players reject a GMI, or a compel in Fate either. If your players trust you they just go with it and except the Fate point or XP without any great ceremony or negotiation. If they were to reject my GMI I would just smoothly divert the action I was describing so that the 'bad thing' didn't happen to them.

It's a bit like the difference between saying 'I hit' versus saying 'I swing'. Use open language to set up the situation then just fork based on the player's response.