TheRPGSite

I have three questions and would like clarifications/opinions.

1) You can buy a title for 3 xp, but what I'm curious about is if being a Aeon Priest in the Order of Truth or an Angulan Knight would "require" purchasing a title. Also, would it be too much for a player to spend 3 xp per rank in the Knights? It's actually my player (the Knight) who feels spending xp per rank would be cool, since he feels the social "oomph" would be worth it.

2) Aside from letting you know how long a numenera's functioning lasts or how powerful it is, does it do/mean anything else? I was thinking it was the difficulty of figuring out what a piece of numenera does, but there's a mention of that being 1 or 2.

3) In the beginning chapter about making a character it mentions that you can buy other things in lieu of a skill, however in the part about spending XP later in the book, it mentions that the same things can be purchased in lieu of ANY of the four requirements to raise a tier. Which is correct? I was thinking the latter is and maybe the former was a holdover from play-testing or something.

Anyway, I for one love this game and can't see why other on "The Other Place" are so full of hate about it.

Thanks in advance!

My take on this is that your character wants to benefit from their title then they should pay points for it; without that, it has no in game 'weight'.

In terms of your second question, I assume you are talking about the level of the Numenera device? The level doesn't seem to have any great effect beyond the ones you mention - driving duration and power.

On the 'conflict' between the rules for buying extra powers, it isn't actually conflicting by the strict wording; the most restrictive description can be applied and you only swap put skills for powers. Given what you would need to give up to get the powers (points in your pools, effort and edge) I personally wouldn't worry about letting any of them being swapped out, however.  

The good thing about Numenera is that, since you derive your XP through discovery rather than killing monsters, it's very hard to power your way to victory so the game is more forgiving on these kind of rules questions in my experience.

Thanks, that helps. I really hope more people come to enjoy this amazing game!

Quote from: Talking_Muffin;695147Anyway, I for one love this game and can't see why other on "The Other Place" are so full of hate about it.

Thanks in advance!

Monte Cook is a symbol of 3e, and he never embraced D&D's inbred second cousin (4e), so they hate anything to do with him.

I'm slowly reading through the book atm and using ninth world hub for idea's and help where needed(ninthworldhub.com), really liking what i've read so far and defintely want to run it at some point.

I ran my first game last night for two players and I can honestly say it was one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. The game's a GM's dream and I used a very cool GM intrusion that, despite being a GMI, the players really liked.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;695258Monte Cook is a symbol of 3e, and he never embraced D&D's inbred second cousin (4e), so they hate anything to do with him.

Typical purple palace bullshit...*sigh*

Quote from: Talking_Muffin;6951471) You can buy a title for 3 xp, but what I'm curious about is if being a Aeon Priest in the Order of Truth or an Angulan Knight would "require" purchasing a title. Also, would it be too much for a player to spend 3 xp per rank in the Knights?

I generally agree with dbm: You spend points on a rank if you want to reap the game benefits from it. (If you don't have the XP to pay for that when you gain the rank, you can either run an XP deficit -- so that the next 3 XP you earn are dog-eared for paying off that rank -- or circumstances might dictate that the rank isn't useful at the moment: For example, you might be the "new guy" that nobody takes seriously yet.)

In terms of spending XP for every additional rank, it might make sense to look at what the mechanical meaning of that XP is. In general, spending 3 XP is somewhere between a trained skill and a local-use-only skill. And there is a reason why the game only lets you become specialized in a skill (instead of gaining a third or fourth rank in it).

A possible option: Becoming a "devotee" of the Knights doesn't cost anything and doesn't have any real mechanical effect. It's nice, but you haven't proven yourself yet. When you become a Knight Seeker, you spend 3 XP because now your reputation as a knight has some weight to it and you can throw it around a little bit. Then spend another 3 XP at Master Knight because that's when you've accumulated enough additional weight that new options and benefits open up.

Quote from: Talking_Muffin;6951472) Aside from letting you know how long a numenera's functioning lasts or how powerful it is, does it do/mean anything else? I was thinking it was the difficulty of figuring out what a piece of numenera does, but there's a mention of that being 1 or 2.

For cyphers, the level will occasionally determine power (as described in the cypher's description). It might also become relevant if the cypher is being specifically targeted (destroying a level 3 cypher, for example, would usually default to be a level 3 task).

Not that the level of an artifact DOES determine how difficult it is to identify.

What is a GM Intrusion?

Quote from: Bill;695800What is a GM Intrusion?

It's a bid system mechanic for XP rewards: http://www.montecookgames.com/experience-points-and-the-numenera-gm/

Quote from: Bill;695800What is a GM Intrusion?

The GM does a bad thing to your character and you and another player each get 1 XP.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;695832The GM does a bad thing to your character and you and another player each get 1 XP.

I wouldn't characterise it as a bad thing; more something which makes life more complicated for your character. Whilst (if used well) making the game more interesting for you, the player.

But....bad things can also happen as a result of the characters interaction with the setting......

Quote from: Bill;695968But....bad things can also happen as a result of the characters interaction with the setting......

Of course. What's your point? (I mean this without snark)

Quote from: dbm;696066Of course. What's your point? (I mean this without snark)

Bad things just happen, and I see no need for an xp reward for that.

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.

Sounds more like swapping 'I swing' with 'I do nothing'.
Really, you make statements about the action and then retract them if the Players don't accept your bid?
GM: "Orks rush in and shoot arrows at you!" (offers a bennie...)
Players: "No they don't, we're having a nap!" (throws bennie back at GM)

Quote from: Simlasa;696330Sounds more like swapping 'I swing' with 'I do nothing'.
Really, you make statements about the action and then retract them if the Players don't accept your bid?
GM: "Orks rush in and shoot arrows at you!" (offers a bennie...)
Players: "No they don't, we're having a nap!" (throws bennie back at GM)

I sure hope it does not work that way :)

Quote from: dbm;696327*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.

I don't think players should dictate what happens to the gm.

I feel players should dictate what they are doing, and the gm adjudicates what happens.

It's not the actual Intrusion i am uncomfortable with; gm's Intrude ALL the time just doing their job.
Its the mechanical stuff attached to the Intrusion (Normal gming) that seems odd to me.

Quote from: Bill;696342I sure hope it does not work that way :)

Yeah, I'm assuming it doesn't really... but I'm not really clear on the subtle distinction, or value, of what it does do.
What do I gain from using those rules except less immersion and more metagamey moments of bargaining? (similar to my feelings about Fate)

Quote from: Simlasa;696366Yeah, I'm assuming it doesn't really... but I'm not really clear on the subtle distinction, or value, of what it does do.
What do I gain from using those rules except less immersion and more metagamey moments of bargaining? (similar to my feelings about Fate)

I plan to play Numenara to get a feel for it. Who knows? I may like it once I see it in action.

Quote from: Simlasa;696330Sounds more like swapping 'I swing' with 'I do nothing'.
Really, you make statements about the action and then retract them if the Players don't accept your bid?
GM: "Orks rush in and shoot arrows at you!" (offers a bennie...)
Players: "No they don't, we're having a nap!" (throws bennie back at GM)

It's like that if you're rubbish at using the mechanic, sure. If you have any skill as a GM you can make it play naturally.

I wouldn't make the GMI govern whether or not the ambush happened; I would use it to decide whether the ambush happened whilst people were mostly asleep and unprepared, or mostly still awake and so having an easier time reacting.

I probably wouldn't use a GMI for an ambush at all, to be honest. Stuff on that scale is harder to nudge around. I would (and do) use it to apply individual complications or mishaps.

In the game we played at the weekend, one PC was picked on by local teens whilst having a quiet drink as a result of a GMI. The PC was out of his depth and the situation was escalating. His PC was characterised as a bit Aspergers and so couldn't handle this situation himself; one of the other characters had to rescue him before it turned into to a fight.  If the player had rejected the GMI I would have had the teens be half-hearted and run out of steam before the situation got critical.

It's more about adding some bumps in the road than derailing the train.

Why use these rules? It's kind of like Burning Wheel Instincts in reverse. Instincts exist to stop the GM hosing you - you can have an instinct which says you are never unarmed, and that becomes a 'truth' for you character. If you are ambushed in the bath then you had a knife stashed in there with you...

GMIs are so the GM can say "I'm going to make your life difficult by (having you ambushed without a weapon), but I'll give you an XP to compensate". And you can say "Ok, I'll play along" or "No, my character is always armed". All without needing lengthy discussion or negotiation when both parties are on top of things.

I might use a GMI to make a pit open beneath your feet, but I would be reluctant to use it to actually make you fall down that hole - you'd get a Speed defence to avoid falling. If you rejected the GMI then you would have, in effect, auto-succeeded on that defence roll.

So it's a rule to thwart asshole GMs... that could be abused/overdone by asshole GMs?

I'm still not seeing the upside to it.
If I'm not the sort of GM who would generally fuck the players over without warning anyway... what does it do for our group? As far as I can tell they're not clamoring for ways to refuse the stuff I throw at them.
If I'm a player and a pit opens under me I want to be able to reflex save or something... but I DO NOT want the option to chip away the pit, or auto-save or whatever.
That was my big issue with Deadlands/Savage Worlds... nothing bad happening to players unless they wanted it to... so all the dangers felt lukewarm (a big chunk of that might have been on our GM who seems to pull his punches).

Quote from: Simlasa;696387So it's a rule to thwart asshole GMs... that could be abused/overdone by asshole GMs?

An asshat gm will get you no matter what.

I think this rule is intended to provide some structure, consistancy, and give the player some say.

Quote from: Bill;696389An asshat gm will get you no matter what.

I think this rule is intended to provide some structure, consistancy, and give the player some say.

Correct on both counts, pretty much.  I'll be interested to hear what you think when you play.

Quote from: Bill;696389An asshat gm will get you no matter what.

For sure. So these rules can't/won't really govern that behavior.

QuoteI think this rule is intended to provide some structure, consistancy, and give the player some say.

So if I feel there already is structure and consistency... not for me?
If I already feel I have plenty of say as player, "No, let's avoid the haunted tower with the spooky windows", "I'll check for traps!", "I'll stand guard", "I'll go in the back door"... then not for me?

In a way it sounds like something SOME players might want that ends up working counter to their own interests... short-circuiting the fun.
As a player I prefer surprises and for a good bit of the setting/milieu/fiction to be out of my control. It's fun when the GM adds some difficulty... puts a curse on me, sets traps. The 'payout' is already there... I don't need some bogus brownie points to make me feel better about it.
Looks like I'll avoid these rules. Thanks.

Quote from: Simlasa;696396For sure.

So if I already feel there is structure and consistency... not for me? If I already feel I have plenty of say as player, "No, let's avoid the haunted tower with the spooky windows", "I'll check for traps!", "I'll stand guard", "I'll go in the back door"... then not for me?

In a way it sounds like something SOME players might want that ends up working counter to their own interests... short-circuiting the fun.
As a player I prefer surprises and for a good bit of the setting/milieu/fiction to be out of my control.
Looks like I'll avoid these rules. Thanks.

I would still recommend trying it out if an opportunity arises. Each gm will likely do things a bit differently as well.

Oh, I'll play anything once... maybe twice. I played 4e for a couple of months before giving up on it. But I'm not going to buy it or lobby for it at the table (not that that EVER does me any good anyway). If someone else brings it I'll give it a try.

Quote from: Simlasa;696407Oh, I'll play anything once... maybe twice. I played 4e for a couple of months before giving up on it.

I am very forgiving as a player.

I can be picky as a gm, but fortunately there are a ton of games I like to gm.

Quote from: Bill;696344Its the mechanical stuff attached to the Intrusion (Normal gming) that seems odd to me.

If your normal mode of GMing is to, for example, interpret a successful attack roll as meaning that the PC has lost their weapon and your players never have any sort of problem with that... Then, yeah, GM intrusions aren't going to make a lot of sense to you.

But I'll be honest: I have literally never met a GM who did that. And if I did, I'd be shocked to find that their players never debate those decisions.

Quote from: dbm;696378GMIs are so the GM can say "I'm going to make your life difficult by (having you ambushed without a weapon), but I'll give you an XP to compensate". And you can say "Ok, I'll play along" or "No, my character is always armed". All without needing lengthy discussion or negotiation when both parties are on top of things.

Great example. I actually had this situation come up a few months back: Armed guys broke into a party the PCs were attending and I said, "Okay. Your weapons are back in your hotel room." And one of the players said, "No. I'd always have my sword on me." And we had a brief debate about that before I said, "OK. Then you've got your sword."

It wasn't an "end of the universe" type of discussion/debate. It only lasted about 60 seconds. But during those 60 seconds, everyone's attention had been ripped out of the game world and focused on the metagame discussion.

If I had been running Numenera, I would have offered the intrusion ("I think you probably left your weapons in your rooms") and they would have rejected it ("I'm never without my sword"). Instead of a 60 second discussion, the back-and-forth is handled smoothly by a mechanic in less than 5 seconds and the focus of the game stays on the game world.

Another common intrusion would, "Bob triggers a trap. Mary, you're close enough that you're going to fall into the pit, too." If you've never been at a table where that prompted Mary's player to say, "No way! I would have stayed on the far side of the room!" then I would consider you to be living a blessed existence. And, again, these are rarely huge debates or problems. Nobody is going to get challenged to a duel at sunrise. But the GM intrusion mechanics provides a quick, smooth structure for resolving the disagreement.

I wonder how much of the resistance to the mechanic is also coming from the sort of people who get upset because "killing monsters shouldn't make you better at swimming"? I've long since come to terms with the fact that XP (and advancement mechanics in general) are completely dissociated mechanics in 99% of the roleplaying games out there. So blending XP and moxie points into a little back-and-forth economy to facilitate the resolution of disagreement.

Particularly since, as I said before, the net result of all this is that it gives the GM a lot more flexibility to push the envelope with the decisions they make: Where I might play it conservative or hedge my bets in other games, in Numenera I can take bigger risks because if it turns out I went too far my players can very easily nudge the game back in the right direction.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;696437I actually had this situation come up a few months back...

OK, now see... those examples sound fairly reasonable to me... they're things that haven't been specified. The GM hasn't asked for a list of what equipment you're taking to the party (ours usually does) or hasn't asked for specific marching order/positioning.
So the Players can't outright refuse the attack at the party? They can't change the sex of the Mayor? They can't alter things outside of themselves or things that have already been clearly stated?
It's only to answer questions left open about the PCs eg. Did he or did he not have himself tied to the rope? Which saddlebag had the gold in it?

And it's XP for just the affected PC? The whole group can't refuse a wandering monster that attacks?

And no... the 'I got better at swimming by killing trolls' quandry doesn't bug me all that much, at least in regards to D&D. But I generally prefer BRP/RQ and XP there is different.

I guess that jhkim was right, some terms put people off before they have the experience of how it plays out at the table.

I mean, GM Intrusion couldn't be more badly worded for those kinds of people.

Actually, I would think a lot of people on the forums here would really like how XP is awarded in Numenera.

1. GM Intrusion (Which has been described above, and Justin did a great job describing it)

2. Discovery (Finding magic items, leftover remnants of the past worlds, etc.)

3. Accomplishing goals that required overcoming challenges. These goals can be set by the GM OR the Player, as long as it requires overcoming some form of challenge. (You can't set a goal of "EATING THIS SANDWICH" and expect to get XP).

It does a lot to encourage exploring over confrontation, kind of like the gold for XP rules from old school D&D.

Just as a note: I really like Numenera. I didn't think much of it at first, but then I wanted to see what all this fuss was about... and after reading through most of it I have a copy arriving in the mail tomorrow.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;696437If your normal mode of GMing is to, for example, interpret a successful attack roll as meaning that the PC has lost their weapon and your players never have any sort of problem with that... Then, yeah, GM intrusions aren't going to make a lot of sense to you.
QUOTE]

I don't get that at all.  

Why would a gm assume a successful attack means you lost a weapon?

Quote from: Simlasa;696448OK, now see... those examples sound fairly reasonable to me... they're things that haven't been specified. The GM hasn't asked for a list of what equipment you're taking to the party (ours usually does) or hasn't asked for specific marching order/positioning.
So the Players can't outright refuse the attack at the party? They can't change the sex of the Mayor? They can't alter things outside of themselves or things that have already been clearly stated?
It's only to answer questions left open about the PCs eg. Did he or did he not have himself tied to the rope? Which saddlebag had the gold in it?

The way I play it, it's either:

• A "Schrödinger's cat" scenario where something previously unspecified and ambiguous is taken and defined in one way or another, or
• A new situation starts to develop and it could go one way or another

Players do not have explicit rights to edit the scene in Numenera.

QuoteAnd it's XP for just the affected PC? The whole group can't refuse a wandering monster that attacks?

There are mechanisms for both, you could have a GMI which effected the whole party (like the ambush scenario) or it could just effect one PC (like the 'you spilled my pint' scenario). You could choose to mash the two together if you liked, and only have part of the PCs surprised when ambushed if you have one person who objects but all the rest go with it.

Like I mentioned earlier, I have never had one of these things rejected as my group are cool with the idea that trouble=fun and we trust each other not to hose too strongly.

Quote from: Bill;696486

Quote from: Justin Alexander;696437If your normal mode of GMing is to, for example, interpret a successful attack roll as meaning that the PC has lost their weapon and your players never have any sort of problem with that... Then, yeah, GM intrusions aren't going to make a lot of sense to you.

I don't get that at all.  

Why would a gm assume a successful attack means you lost a weapon?

I can't speak for Justin, but maybe he means that if your GM style is to manoeuvre the PCs with circumstance and the players never object then you wouldn't need a mechanism for negotiating or marking these kind of things?

If this kind if thing were to be handled in Numenera as a GMI then I suspect the GM would describe it something like "the ginormous abhuman back-hands you solidly and you are flung across the room - your weapon starts to slip from your hand?" At this point you would visually offer the XP (via poker chips or the like) and if the player rejects you add "... But in the nick of time you regain hold". Otherwise the PC has been disarmed by the blow.

Quote from: dbm;696544The way I play it, it's either:

• A "Schrödinger's cat" scenario where something previously unspecified and ambiguous is taken and defined in one way or another, or
• A new situation starts to develop and it could go one way or another

Players do not have explicit rights to edit the scene in Numenera.



There are mechanisms for both, you could have a GMI which effected the whole party (like the ambush scenario) or it could just effect one PC (like the 'you spilled my pint' scenario). You could choose to mash the two together if you liked, and only have part of the PCs surprised when ambushed if you have one person who objects but all the rest go with it.

Like I mentioned earlier, I have never had one of these things rejected as my group are cool with the idea that trouble=fun and we trust each other not to hose too strongly.



I can't speak for Justin, but maybe he means that if your GM style is to manoeuvre the PCs with circumstance and the players never object then you wouldn't need a mechanism for negotiating or marking these kind of things?

If this kind if thing were to be handled in Numenera as a GMI then I suspect the GM would describe it something like "the ginormous abhuman back-hands you solidly and you are flung across the room - your weapon starts to slip from your hand?" At this point you would visually offer the XP (via poker chips or the like) and if the player rejects you add "... But in the nick of time you regain hold". Otherwise the PC has been disarmed by the blow.

I never intentionally maneuver pc's; if that can even be defined. I tend to let them get into trouble themselves. I am kinda the 'anti railroad' type. So I don't really experience maneuvering pc's, or player objections.

When I do something like a disarm, I tend to let critical hits guide that.

I can see the use for a mechanical effect for 'situatonal bad things' but I am also very wary of too many metagame distractions.

I suspect familarity is key here; hopefully when one is used to the Intrusion mechanics they don't seem as....Intrusive :)

Quote from: Bill;696557When I do something like a disarm, I tend to let critical hits guide that.

That would be pretty much 'by the book' in Numenera terms. A crit-fail on your defence roll triggers a GMI which doesn't have the XP-treat attached.

You could use an XP to reject the GMI, but you'd be much more likely to use it for a re-roll instead.

Quote from: Bill;696486I don't get that at all.  

Why would a gm assume a successful attack means you lost a weapon?

He wouldn't.  Justin's example was, "You hit the monster, but your axe is lodged in his shell.  You'll have to get it unstuck."  The GMI mechanic allows the GM to do that without feeling like he's "cheated" the players.  If the GM ruled such with more traditional mechanics (i.e., you hit his Armor Class, but now your axe is stuck for no reason), it would seem unfair.  The GMI solves this.

Quote from: Simlasa;696448So the Players can't outright refuse the attack at the party?

Anything you choose to introduce as a GM intrusion can be refused. It's a pretty flexible mechanic, so the GM is free to declare pretty much anything to be a GM intrusion. And, conversely, the GM is also free to do pretty much anything they want without it being a GM intrusion.

So if the PCs are negotiating with some bandits on the road and you say, "GM intrusion: The bandits are attacking you!" Then the players would have the ability to outright refuse that attack.

But the "if" is pretty important. If that's not the sort of thing you think the players should have any control over, it shouldn't be a GM intrusion. (A better intrusion along the same lines might be something like: "The bandit archer hidden fires a shot! You never saw it coming!" And if the players buy that off, they spot her before she shoots or notice the bandit leader giving her a sign. In other words, the intrusion is "you're surprised!" not "she shoots you". She's going to be shooting regardless.)

The key point here is that the GM is in complete control: The players can only buy-off things which the GM declares to be intrusions. Neither the players nor the rules can force the GM to declare anything to be an intrusion that they don't want to be an intrusion.

QuoteAnd it's XP for just the affected PC? The whole group can't refuse a wandering monster that attacks?

I believe it's only the affected PC, but I'd have to double-check the rulebook to say that with absolute certainty.

Quote from: Bill;696486I don't get that at all.  

Why would a gm assume a successful attack means you lost a weapon?

You've never seen a movie where a character's melee weapon gets stuck in a body?

That's not meant to be a rhetorical question: I'm trying to figure out if you're literally unaware that this is a thing which can actually happen. (In addition to be a common media trope, it's also a thing well-testified to in real life.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;696769The key point here is that the GM is in complete control: The players can only buy-off things which the GM declares to be intrusions. Neither the players nor the rules can force the GM to declare anything to be an intrusion that they don't want to be an intrusion.

OK, this smooths down my hackles. Sounds... not so bad.

QuoteYou've never seen a movie where a character's melee weapon gets stuck in a body?

I think that was part of the RQII rules regarding impales. You did a lot of damage but also risked getting your weapon stuck.
Somehow that wasn't how I read you though... it sounded like you were saying the GM declared the successful attacker had just dropped his weapon for no reason.

All in all the GMI thing doesn't sound like the deal-breaker I was taking it to be. It's not constant Fate-like negotiations, the GM can still put tigers in your bathtub.
The setting of Numenera interests me and Monty Cook has had my good will since Dark Space... so I guess it's back on my 'buy' list.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;696769Anything you choose to introduce as a GM intrusion can be refused. It's a pretty flexible mechanic, so the GM is free to declare pretty much anything to be a GM intrusion. And, conversely, the GM is also free to do pretty much anything they want without it being a GM intrusion.

So if the PCs are negotiating with some bandits on the road and you say, "GM intrusion: The bandits are attacking you!" Then the players would have the ability to outright refuse that attack.

But the "if" is pretty important. If that's not the sort of thing you think the players should have any control over, it shouldn't be a GM intrusion. (A better intrusion along the same lines might be something like: "The bandit archer hidden fires a shot! You never saw it coming!" And if the players buy that off, they spot her before she shoots or notice the bandit leader giving her a sign. In other words, the intrusion is "you're surprised!" not "she shoots you". She's going to be shooting regardless.)

The key point here is that the GM is in complete control: The players can only buy-off things which the GM declares to be intrusions. Neither the players nor the rules can force the GM to declare anything to be an intrusion that they don't want to be an intrusion.



I believe it's only the affected PC, but I'd have to double-check the rulebook to say that with absolute certainty.



You've never seen a movie where a character's melee weapon gets stuck in a body?

That's not meant to be a rhetorical question: I'm trying to figure out if you're literally unaware that this is a thing which can actually happen. (In addition to be a common media trope, it's also a thing well-testified to in real life.)

I was responding to this:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;696437If your normal mode of GMing is to, for example, interpret a successful attack roll as meaning that the PC has lost their weapon and your players never have any sort of problem with that... Then, yeah, GM intrusions aren't going to make a lot of sense to you.

Yeah, that's the bit I read as the attacker somehow dropping/throwing his weapon... no mention of it being lodged inside his target.

Heck, I'm really only interested in this game for the setting... how portable would it seem... say to something like BRP or GURPS... or Mutant Future maybe?

Quote from: Simlasa;697007Yeah, that's the bit I read as the attacker somehow dropping/throwing his weapon... no mention of it being lodged inside his target.

Heck, I'm really only interested in this game for the setting... how portable would it seem... say to something like BRP or GURPS... or Mutant Future maybe?

Give how light the mechanics are it would be very easy to port; just whip up stats in your system of choice. A generic system would be best as there are a diverse range of powers which you will need to convert.