Last year I picked up Monte Cook's Numenera book, on a whim. Having enjoyed the Pelgrane Press Dying Earth RPG from a few years earlier, and also being a fan of the concept of, shall we say 'Super-future Sci-fi fantasy', I figured Numenera would be right up my ally.
Of course I have been dimly aware that Mssr. Cook has been rather over hyped as a game designer for some time and I found Numenera to be sadly lacking, with an overly simplistic and oddly unworkable rule set and far too little attention paid to fleshing out the setting that was, in theory, the entire point of the game. To whit, I am still not entirely sure where the weight of the book has gone, since neither the rules, nor the setting information have filled it.
You may, then, be wondering what, exactly, this has to do with 'The Strange', aside from the fact that they are both from Monte Cook?
Quite simply, The Strange is very nearly Numenera with a miniscule number of changes to the setting, such as changing the class names. Mostly changing the Class Names.
Just as in Numenera you have three classes that can best be described as 'Physical Guy', 'Magic Guy', and 'Clever Guy'. And just like in Numenera you can't call them by common sense names, but have strange jargon names like 'vector', 'Spinner' and 'Paradox'. Bonus points if you can tell me which class does what based on the names.
Like Numenera, character design is summed up cleverly, but hollowly, by saying you are a adjective noun who verbs, where the Noun is your class and the adjective and verb come from fairly short lists of options.
This is not unlike saying defining your D&D character by saying 'I am a Sword Fighter who dual wields', really. Its a bit of a gimmick, though it does accurately describe the bulk of character creation. Of course your 'stats' are mostly pre-defined by your class, and your class is essentially a list of powers that are, purely fluff wise, based on your class's theme.
The biggest change comes in the verbing part of character creation, due to the unique setting of The Strange.
Let me pull back a bit so this will make sense.
Numenera is set at the very end of life on Earth, millions or billions of years in the future. The Strange is set now, today.. if that TV show, Fringe, was more true than we'd like to admit. The Strange, from which the game takes its name, is the weird energy that forms the interstistal space between multiversal worlds, and is the source of all your character's cool abilities. Yes, even if you define yourself as a mundane fighter, you still are awesome at mundane shit because you are magically powered by magic. I mean by The Strange.
Implicit in the game design is the idea of trans dimensional hopping, and three dimensions are presented, to include modern earth. Your 'verbing' is specific to which dimension you are presently in.
See: Unlike most dimension hopping settings you don't actually port over your character directly but translate him instead to the new paradigm, which usually means changing your powerering Verb. Modern Earth characters can't have the verb 'Slays Dragons', for example, which is specific to the fantasy dimension.
Fundamentally, however, the concept of your character remains the same, forcing you to redesign your character into three different versions of the same character for three different settings, and presumably more if they release additional books with additional settings. So on earth your Vector might be a former linebacker, while on fantasy-world he is a stone golem, with all that implies.
While the Idea is neat enough, I don't think it works as a game concept, if only because of the amount of work entailed from the players. Forgive me my prejudices, but in my experience most players are lazy gits.
Further, due to the rather rigidly contrained numbers, there isn't really much mechancial difference between worlds. Your former linebacker with an uzi becomes a stone golem with a repeating crossbow, and mechancally is throwing the same numbers down against equally ruthlessly balanced npc/monsters. That same Vector, translated to bio-mechanical future-world becomes a Warrior Caste bio-cyborg with a blaster rifle... and still throws the same mechanics in combat and uses most of the same powers, a blatantly illusory choice at the end.
Further tying this game to Numenera is the idea of cyphers. Since ordinary equipment is so bland and ordinary, your Strange can pick up super awesome magic stuff, either somewhat permanent or limited by uses, called Cyphers. These are identical in practice to the Cyphers in Numenera, except that the Fluff more or less changes them from Super-Science artifacts of previous eras to doo-dads powered by the extra-dimensional energies of The Strange.
To be honest I would have been more impressed with this product if it had been more closely linked with the Numenera stuff... or more probably, if Numenera had been presented simply as one possible Interdimensional Realm of The Strange, and the various facets of character creation tied to trans-dimensional travel had been made more optional. The setting of The Strange lends itself well to an X-Files sort of game play, except for the fact that everything gets paradigm shifted (So nothing is weird at all) and your characters are presumed to already be clued into this whole dimension hopping thing.
On the other hand, the Players Guide, which this review is for, is not a bad purchase at only twenty dollars as it gives you the very complete game without all the bloat of the full book. Sure, you don't really have the bestiary, but having seen the Numenera Bestiary, I can tell you that you aren't really missing much... since critters are almost completely defined by their difficulty ratings. It is possible that the setting information for Fantasy World and Bio-tech world would be worth the extra price, but that is, for me, mere speculation.
So, in the end, I can recommend the players guide as a starting point for the curious, and a decent resource for people willing to try out the 'new' Monte Cook engine on the cheap.
Quote from: Spike;788006Just as in Numenera you have three classes that can best be described as 'Physical Guy', 'Magic Guy', and 'Clever Guy'. And just like in Numenera you can't call them by common sense names, but have strange jargon names like 'vector', 'Spinner' and 'Paradox'. Bonus points if you can tell me which class does what based on the names.
Like Numenera, character design is summed up cleverly, but hollowly, by saying you are a adjective noun who verbs, where the Noun is your class and the adjective and verb come from fairly short lists of options.
You made a critical hit here, if your intent was to make me run as fast as possible from this game, and never look back. :rotfl:
Quote from: Turanil;788024You made a critical hit here, if your intent was to make me run as fast as possible from this game, and never look back. :rotfl:
Pardon me while I back away slowly from the guy pitching a class-and-race-based fantasy system in his .sig complaining about character creation being based around selecting options from a list.
Glad to see Spike back with a vengeance. :)
Fluff-wise I should like The Strange even better than Numenera, being a perennial fan of Rifts, Torg and cross-genre madness in general. I'm still uncertain towards the much-maligned system, though. We're just two sessions into our Numenera game and we've had maybe two dice rolls (no combat yet). I'll probably pick it up eventually, pending judgement on the system's performance in actual play.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;788027Pardon me while I back away slowly from the guy pitching a class-and-race-based fantasy system in his .sig complaining about character creation being based around selecting options from a list.
Maybe it was the jargon? I sure don't mind it but it does rub some people the wrong way.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;788027Pardon me while I back away slowly from the guy pitching a class-and-race-based fantasy system in his .sig complaining about character creation being based around selecting options from a list.
Touché !
Honestly, I don't understand the complaint of the people about the character generation and the game system of Numenera/the Strange. There is 2 nice character generators here : http://darkliquid.co.uk/playground/numenera/ and here http://www.prime-junta.net/numenera/index.html which the character cration very easy. But I guess it is my win to like the system and the setting
Nice review, by the way !
Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with the sentence structure creation system. I think describing it that way and forcing it to fit that format is somewhat restricting and gimmicky, but it works just fine.
Mechanically I have to go by play reviews I've seen from Numenera, and what I can see of the system (since I've got too many games to convince my players to try one just for a review...), in which you've got too little 'wiggle room' to construct challenges based on the fixed difficulties. You wind up, as I understand it, with one of three circumstances: Too easy, too average, and too hard. Now, any given game might produce a challenge that fits one of those three catagories, certainly but Numenera, and by extension The Strange, seems to force every roll into those three.
As an aside: I noticed back in the heyday of BESM/Tri-stat that three choices, while mathematically appealing, seems to be one too few for good game design. I saw this in comparing the Tri-Stat system to GURPS (with its four stats), and I noticed the three classes with True20/Blue Rose. It's just a little too simplified, a little too rigid. I suspect a part if comes down to replayability. Tri-stat didn't get old until the third or fourth run through of character creation.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;788027Pardon me while I back away slowly from the guy pitching a class-and-race-based fantasy system in his .sig complaining about character creation being based around selecting options from a list.
There is no "class as race" in my book. Then, I don't know The Strange, I just read the review and find funny this passage, the way character creation process is described, and especially the weird sounding names. Now, if I were reading through the game itself, I might have another opinion.
I still remember when I bought a Monte Cook gaming book on some multiverse's planes, and found it extremely poor/useless/lacking. I said so on some forum, and was literally insulted by MC fans who could not tolerate anything but that people should be ravings about any MC book.
Quote from: Turanil;788114There is no "class as race" in my book.
That's... nice, I guess? I'm not really sure what it has to do with anything that I said.
QuoteI said so on some forum, and was literally insulted by MC fans who could not tolerate anything but that people should be ravings about any MC book.
Ah. I get it. You're a clueless spinner who specializes in non sequiturs.
Quote from: Spike;788100Mechanically I have to go by play reviews I've seen from Numenera, and what I can see of the system (since I've got too many games to convince my players to try one just for a review...), in which you've got too little 'wiggle room' to construct challenges based on the fixed difficulties. You wind up, as I understand it, with one of three circumstances: Too easy, too average, and too hard.
That doesn't match my experience with the system, but I'm also having some trouble parsing what the actual complaint is supposed to be.
The "fixed difficulties" feature 15% shifts in the probability of success. So claim here is that, if a 55% chance of success is "too average", then a 40% chance of success is "too hard" and the game somehow missed the sweet spot by skipping over 45% and 50% chances of success.
Shift those numbers to whatever base value of "too average" you like, it still boils down to claiming that the system's effectiveness or ineffectiveness hinges on a 5% shift. And that seems a trifle absurd.
(If you're talking about the construction of larger challenges like a creature or a group of creatures, the system basically gives you complete flexibility to define the individual components of those creatures to whatever level of fidelity you desire. So the complaint would make even less sense to me.)
Well, Justin: I have been debating tracking down the "actual Play" reviews and linking to them, to address my point. I'll admit to being rather facile in this particular review when it came to mechanics, given that I'd already done the due diligence with Numenera more than a year ago.
Obviously I need to do that now to defend my honor! :D
I've yet to see any actual play of Monte Cook's games (outside of 3e) at conventions, but people do like to buy and read his books.
We've had an interesting experience with Numenera:
Our first session running it, I hated it.
Our second session running it, I loved it.
The big issue for me was divorcing the idea of the number of points in a given attribute pool being equivalent to DnD style atributes. They are more of a representation of how much effort you can expend in certain areas, and your edge (or whatever the 'discount' is called) is more indicative of your strength/intelligence etc.
I find the rules to be less abstract than D20 is to be honest.
I backed both Numenera and the The Strange and, to be honest, wish I hadn't of bothered. I think I got suckered in with the nice Numenera KS art and hoping The Strange would add something to make the former useable.
It doesn't.
I'm converting it all over to other systems and having to add so much to the setting material and removing all the crappy bloat and pointless waffle that it's tiresome in some respects. The Numenera setting, when de-D&D-ified and removed of all naff fantasy references dressed up as sci-fi and actually nurtured into some semblance of coherence is actually good. The group I run it with are enjoying it now - but utterly loathed it RAW using the bog-standard setting and Cypher system (Which was by far the biggest issue).
As one player put it too me, amongst other unflattering comparisons, that it was basically a glorified game of Top Trumps in comparing stats. Ultimately the Cypher system is gimmicky as are the actual in-setting "Cyphers".
In short - I'd avoid both. If I though I could actually get anything for my Numenena hardcopy (Deluxe - what the HELL was I thinking ...) and other hardcopies I'd get rid today. You have to do so much with it that it may as well be just a home-brew game.
Quote from: El_Phantasmo;788686As one player put it too me, amongst other unflattering comparisons, that it was basically a glorified game of Top Trumps in comparing stats.
I can't actually track that comment meaningfully onto any mechanic in the entire game. It seems to be alluding to comparing cypher level to NPC target level, but that doesn't actually involve character stats.
This is like reading a critique of D&D that says, "The problem is that the fighty-guy's spells can't affect skeletons." It's not 100% clear what the guy's actual problem with the system is, but you're pretty sure it's wrong.
Shorter Justin Alexander to El Phantasmo: "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
;)
Quote from: Spike;788802Shorter Justin Alexander to El Phantasmo: "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
;)
You seem to be implying that nobody in the history of the universe has ever screwed up a game mechanic.
Shorter version: I find your post absurd.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;788973You seem to be implying that nobody in the history of the universe has ever screwed up a game mechanic.
Shorter version: I find your post absurd.
Not at all. I'm implying you just told someone that their experience with the game is wrong.
So is El Phantasmo supposed to believe what he experienced at the table, or you?
Given what I've read elsewhere, and can see in the rules, while I wouldn't have used the phrase 'Top Trumps', as he did, I can definitely see why he said that. You, on the other hand, merely scoffed and offered nothing in rebuttal except your scorn. Hmm...
Quote from: Spike;789070Not at all. I'm implying you just told someone that their experience with the game is wrong.
You appear to be under the impression that I'm saying, "You appear to be interpreting the rules incorrectly here in this thread, but I bet you actually used the correct rules at your gaming table." You are, however, confused: I fully expect that he also fucked up the rules during actual play.
QuoteYou, on the other hand, merely scoffed and offered nothing in rebuttal except your scorn.
This, of course, is a blatant lie.
I can't help noticing, of course, that this is a completely accurate description of your own comments here. Are you hoping that blatant lying will make people not notice your own lack of credibility? I think you'll find that hypocrisy isn't going to help. Try to do better in the future.
Quote...while I wouldn't have used the phrase 'Top Trumps', as he did, I can definitely see why he said that.
Then, since he doesn't appear to be coming back, perhaps
you could explain what "comparing stats" mechanic you're referencing and why you feel none of the other mechanics in the game exist.
As I mentioned before, in the rebuttal you lied about not existing: I anticipate you're going to have some difficulty doing this, since there is literally not a single mechanic in the game which involves comparing stats to anything. But please feel free to prove me wrong.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;789118Then, since he doesn't appear to be coming back, perhaps you could explain what "comparing stats" mechanic you're referencing and why you feel none of the other mechanics in the game exist.
As I mentioned before, in the rebuttal you lied about not existing: I anticipate you're going to have some difficulty doing this, since there is literally not a single mechanic in the game which involves comparing stats to anything. But please feel free to prove me wrong.
Don't worry, I'm back, and I'll provide a little more information;
Said mate is a systems ... guru? Numbers are his thing. He thinks that Eclipse Phase is simple. His "Top Trumps" wasn't about any one specific mechanic or part of the system - his issue was with the massive over simplication of everything to one of four numbers - Either Tier/level and Might, Speed and Intellect.
He's a player that likes variation and lots of ways of lots of things affecting everything else in lots of ways. For example he likes combat moves that make a strike hit harder, or ones that are quicker, or ones that create some kind of opening for more advanced moves and the like. What he doesn't like is, for example, playing a "Fighter" of any description where most things boil down to affecting solely a "Might" pool or, if built to allow it the "Speed" pool.
I dislike the system for other reasons though the above's in there somewhere - everything boiled down probably works well for players who want solely story driven games and the like, but it seems like so would completely free-form improvised theatre. It feels rickety, knocked together and liable to fall over. There's little nuance or variation, everything's so simplified that - and it's a "feels" thing not something mapped to a particular mechanic - it "feels" like Top Trumps or some smartphone CCG app etc.
My other dislikes tend to be around the skill system (Or, more accurately, lack of consistency thereof by saying "Meh, pick what the hell you want!"), advancement/Tiers (My own fault, I dislike Class and Level based systems normally and I've found that Cypher very much falls into the majority that to me feel constricting, limiting and artificially structured) and some other minor things which are largely just little gripes and niggles.
El Phantasmo, may I ask what kind of game system do you favor ? And have you an actual quote of some one saying that Eclipse Phase has a simple system ? It seems preposterous to me (I wish that EP had a simpler system because I like the setting. I had played as a player one time and it was nice but I am not sure that it is simple in the long run) !
Quote from: yabaziou;789223El Phantasmo, may I ask what kind of game system do you favor ? And have you an actual quote of some one saying that Eclipse Phase has a simple system ? It seems preposterous to me (I wish that EP had a simpler system because I like the setting. I had played as a player one time and it was nice but I am not sure that it is simple in the long run) !
Of course! I personally find EP a swine of system - I've only played it a few times and I know I don't have it straight in my mind. Mind you many, many years ago I had Rolemaster memorised to perfection. Over the years I've moved away from the heavy crunchy systems to a more mid-level set of games. Also yes, it was a friend who perceives EP to be "simple", mind you he's somewhat of a genius and scarily well paid in his chosen career thanks to his intelligence. :(
The cWoD and nWoD are in there purely for the simplicity of the system, Exalted is about as crunchy and heavy as I get. SLA Industries, Fading Suns (Not the current Revised version), L5R. I've played some FATE too which is odd and very light to me but I can see the versatility of the system.
My background is very much not in D&D - I remember when I was starting in roleplay many moons ago that we tried a few, but even then the limits of "Classes" and "levels" just didn't sit right with me. The Cypher system seems to be a very stripped back and basic version of some old D&D with pools instead of stats.
Cypher though ... wants to enable all things, but it's there just enough to stop that in a convincing manner. Everything boils down to the same few things affecting the limited number of stats/measures etc. There's elements I like but the vast majority just seems to have been distilled past the point of use into almost pointlessness. You get up into the high Tiers and things become even more silly in that you may as well get rid of the system entirely - the chances of failure for even broad-focused characters becomes minimal at best unless attempting literally impossible tasks.
I basically need more meat on a system, too little system and we may as well just sit around talking without a system at all.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;789118You appear to be under the impression that I'm saying, "You appear to be interpreting the rules incorrectly here in this thread, but I bet you actually used the correct rules at your gaming table." You are, however, confused: I fully expect that he also fucked up the rules during actual play.
Your reading comprehension, it sucks.
Not merely the fact that you think I said anything like the words you just put in my mouth, but also that you somehow added the Cyphers to El_phantasmo's critique up thread. You're reading things that just aren't there.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;789118This, of course, is a blatant lie.
This being the internet and all, and thus a written form of communication, it just so happens that I have a rather simple way to prove that what you just said is, in fact, the blatant lie.
Here:
Quote from: Me, being quoted by youYou, on the other hand, merely scoffed and offered nothing in rebuttal except your scorn.
What I was referencing:
Quote from: You, a couple of posts backI can't actually track that comment meaningfully onto any mechanic in the entire game. It seems to be alluding to comparing cypher level to NPC target level, but that doesn't actually involve character stats.
This is like reading a critique of D&D that says, "The problem is that the fighty-guy's spells can't affect skeletons." It's not 100% clear what the guy's actual problem with the system is, but you're pretty sure it's wrong.
Where, in that relatively short statement is an actual case for rebuttal, a refutation of points? In the first paragraph you admit you don't actually know what he's talking about. Nope, no rebuttal there.
What about the second paragraph?
Nope, its just a vague attempt to reframe a critique you just admitted you didn't understand into a lame D&D metaphor illustration that utterly missed the point. Again: No real rebuttal here, no argument, no case, no logic. Just a crappy nonsense metaphor that does, however, illustrate some scorn for the critique by its utter nonsense.
So what do we have in that quote then? Is it scorn? Why yes, I see scorn quite handily, as I think most reasonable people would. Intended or not, its there.
What do we NOT have in that quote? A meaningful rebuttal.
So, in what way was this statement:
Quote from: Me, being quoted by youYou, on the other hand, merely scoffed and offered nothing in rebuttal except your scorn.
In any meaningful way an untruth, a misrepresentation of fact... in short, a LIE. In fact, a lie that is nakedly obvious to even the most casual of observations, lacking any foundation of truth. Blatant, you might say?
Please, do enlighten me.
QuoteI can't help noticing, of course, that this is a completely accurate description of your own comments here.
I'll own to scoffing and scorn. What of it? On the other hand, I am more than ready to make my point with quotes, facts and even, if necessary, page numbers so people can look stuff up for themselves.
QuoteAre you hoping that blatant lying will make people not notice your own lack of credibility?
I think we've covered the blatant lying comment already, but if you'd like I can break it down even more. Let me know if you really want that.
But, by all means: Demonstrate my lack of credibility. I mean, I do go out of my way to explain exactly where I am coming from and any possible biases and weaknesses in my review, up front. Will I need to explain credibility to you as well?
QuoteI think you'll find that hypocrisy isn't going to help. Try to do better in the future.
Challenge accepted. Do try to keep up.
QuoteThen, since he doesn't appear to be coming back, perhaps you could explain what "comparing stats" mechanic you're referencing and why you feel none of the other mechanics in the game exist.
And where exactly did I claim that no other mechanics existed? By all means, provide the quote. Feel free to read closely. I'll even accept a quote that might just be interpreted that way, rather than forcing you to find something explicit. I'm generous that way.
QuoteAs I mentioned before, in the rebuttal you lied about not existing: I anticipate you're going to have some difficulty doing this, since there is literally not a single mechanic in the game which involves comparing stats to anything. But please feel free to prove me wrong.
You really want that to have been a lie, don't you? Its quite pathetic, really.
Now, I could stand by my words and point out that comparing stats is in fact verbiage in the description of the Might Pool, but THAT would be a lie*. The truth is I simply used a very crude and inelegant turn of phrase to describe a mechanic I was too lazy to actually double check. A more accurate way to describe it would be to
Compare the creature's level to the difficulty table, not the stat pool. Since difficulties are fixed and most critters are largely summed up by this single 'level' number, with a few colorful abilities thrown in, it makes for a tediously repetitive system. that would have been more accurate, and yes, it is a gloss rather than an exhaustive breakdown.
But congratulations for catching me out on an error of description. Its a minor victory, but I'll give you the point regardless.
The floor is now yours. Remember, I grade on technique as well as actual arguements leveled. Check your margins for red ink, as I often leave helpful tips on how to improve your technique.
*Not the fact that the Might pool comparison phrase exists, check Page 13, bottom right corner of The Strange player's guide, but rather attempting to claim that was what I meant. Still, I find it amusing that even accidentally I can refute your point that you never compare stats to anything.
Quote from: Spike;789370Snipped lots of a quite elegant post.
I honestly didn't mean my lack of love for the Cypher system to incite a debate...
I've tried playing and running it RAW and I've seen games of Numenera fail quite quickly - however they were PbP games and as such a good number do fail and implode very quickly anyway so likely not a reflection on the system.
I've yet to really see any Strange games crop up online and my FLGS don't appear to be shifting many copies. My own personal experience of using Cypher is quite negative but I do recognise there is a very vocal and very passionate MCG/Numenera/Strange/Cypher/Monte Cook fan base who'll seek to correct criticism and negativity about the system and settings (Seems they're a bit like Marmite - which it's own advertising makes a joke about "You either love it or hate it!").
For the system is too light-weight, doesn't encourage versatility (Largely due to the niche protection rubbish you get with Class systems which is doubly irritating in Numenera which explicitly states in the Main book - and also in the Strange IIRC - that no two PCs should ever have the same Foci.
I imagine that after a few campaigns all the Foci will have been used and their novelty will soon wear thin - especially as the same combinations seem to occur constantly in games or in discussions on various forums. I don't like niche protection and artificially forcing it through a system isn't something I like at all - hence I'm converting Numenera away from the Cyphe system and instead using the nWoD GMC rules which the majority of the players I'm currently running it with are loving. It's not perfect, it's somewhat of a playtest in fact, but I'm already seeing PC's branch out and move away from tropes and traps in Foci and Type choices and having immense fun with the combinations they're finding.
(Frex) - One of the two Jacks has the "Explores Dark Places" Foci. Very much an Indiana Jones/Lara Croft explorer of ruins to find artifacts and cyphers to sell. He recently got infected whilst leading a group by
something and has now found the parasite allows him to change form - he's basically opened up the opportunity to start taking levels of powers from the "Howls at the Moon" powerset (Which is changed a lot in my system).
Why do I bring it up? There's already a player with "Howls at the Moon" - the aforementioned genius/number savvy guy who made the Top Trumps comment and thinks EP is simple. Is he annoyed another player now potentially has HatM powers? No - He's looking forward to it even though he's a "natural" changer. He's looking forward to a mentoring role to the Jack, he's a far more experienced changer and it'll make for some nice RP between them. It goes against everything in the Numenera game and Cypher system but it's working so well. The Nano is wanting to learn combat moves to supplement his Esoteries, Glaives are wanting to be able to do things other than "Hit hard" or "Hit fast" which are the two options in Cypher.
Moving away from Cypher opens up so many options without having to lose anything. I can only imagine what FATE and a SW version would be like.
tl:dr It's working for us and working really well. It's already as memorable as several of our other very long-standing campaigns in other systems and settings but it wouldn't have been using straight vanilla Cypher. Not for everyone we know, but it works for us where Cypher was a no-go from the players first look at it.
Don't sweat it, Phantasmo. I love me a good arguement, or even a bad one. I generally prefer them in real life, among friends, but I'm just as happy to pull the rhetorical knives and see who quits bleeding first online with strangers if they jump up and volunteer for it.
Thanks for your answer, El Phantasmo ! I can see how come you don't like the cypher because it is a class and level system that you seem to not enjoy. Your remarks about EP do not appeased because mt inelligence is not genius-level. Will I a day manage to crasp this system ^_^ (I think the more difficult parts are the character creation and the whole body shift thing).