Quote from: Benoist;676939Saying Numenera could have worked as an OD&D supplement doesn't mean OD&D can or should handle everything. You are projecting.

And you're misinterpreting my statement.  Your nit-picking now.  

My point was pointing out the fact that it is odd that people think that a game designed to handle science fantasy would just be suited to D&D.  D&D still has a big emphasis on Clerics and Mages, and this game doesn't assume that type of power system.  I find it just funny that instead of being praised as innovative people are dismissive saying "why not do a retro-clone".

It gets back to what I said earlier in the thread.  I'm surprised more people are thinking through this lens.  We have one person who is actually doing something new--not just producing another retro-clone based on some version of xD&D or whatever, or a re-release of an existing hoary game system like World of Darkness, CoC, or others that have recently had Kickstarters.  

Plus we have one of the good guys, a man who accomplished an kickstarter, with over 4500 backers, 1/2 a million dollars, producing a professional looking product that's on-time, and got a computer game spin-off licensed.

We need more of this, like I said earlier, and less people creating yet another megadungeon, yet another D&D clone or campaign setting.

Quote from: JRT;676942We need more of this, like I said earlier, and less people creating yet another megadungeon, yet another D&D clone or campaign setting.

I disagree, because I don't see it as an either/or proposition at all. It's an "&" situation, as far as I'm concerned. We can have people creating cool dungeon settings, have more supplements to the OD&D rules (I'd generally prefer that to a plethora of new near-clones games, personally, though there are considerations of IP etc going into the production of such games and products as well, i.e. you can control the entire IP of your game if it's specific and includes all the rules, when instead attaching it to someone else's clone doesn't give you the same control over the whole of your game), AND ALSO have people come up with different game structures and experiences. There's room for all those things.

Such as it is, I'm not actually seeing how Numenera is that radically "different" or even "new", for that matter. The type of science fantasy it hearkens back to (like Vance's Dying Earth) is not something that is exactly new or unheard of. Obscure to fans of the current fantasy paperback trends? Possibly. With a thin patina of modern tech anticipation like nano-everything and the like? OK, yeah I see that. But fundamentally? Three classes, fighter/wizard/in-between-dude, templates that add to specialized checks and the like... I mean, I'm not really seeing how that it's something that's not ever been seen before. It isn't. And yet it might be super-cool in the end, I don't know.

I guess I'll find out sooner or later, because this talk of using Numenera with OD&D has given me ideas. I'll probably get the game at some point, and either riff off some parts of the setting in my D&D campaign, maybe come up with some OD&D variants based on its rules so I can excise the "narrative/story" angle out of it, or just play it wholesale if it's not as bad as even Monte made it sound. So in the end, for all your bitching and moaning that bad people loving old games are killing the hobby, bringing up OD&D here landed one more sale for Monte. Huzzah!

Quote from: Benoist;676946Such as it is, I'm not actually seeing how Numenera is that radically "different" or even "new", for that matter. The type of science fantasy it hearkens back to (like Vance's Dying Earth) is not something that is exactly new or unheard of. Obscure to fans of the current fantasy paperback trends?

It's not the setting that's new, but the game system more or less--it's not just a clone of something.  Admittedly, there's only so much "originality" you can get but that wasn't the primary focus I had.  I just think the game industry is in a big rut right now, and there's too much in-breeding, but that's just an opinion.

Quote from: Benoist;676946So in the end, for all your bitching and moaning, bringing up OD&D here landed one more sell for Monte. Huzzah!

Good for you, and no matter what you do with it at least you've got an open mind.  However, I'm still not sure why you felt the target of "bitching and moaning", as I was clearly aiming my statements at the people who had more visceral reactions.  You've been more polite and nuanced with your criticism.  Remember when people write responses on boards its for the whole thread.

Quote from: JRT;676948Good for you, and no matter what you do with it at least you've got an open mind.  However, I'm still not sure why you felt the target of "bitching and moaning", as I was clearly aiming my statements at the people who had more visceral reactions.  You've been more polite and nuanced with your criticism.  Remember when people write responses on boards its for the whole thread.

It's ok. I'm glad we see eye to eye. I've felt targeted because I was questioning the appeal of the game and I happen to be one of those guys who is really into big dungeons and OD&D. So I guess that's just a case of a crossing of the lines of fire, so to speak.

Quote from: JRT;676948It's not the setting that's new, but the game system more or less--it's not just a clone of something.  Admittedly, there's only so much "originality" you can get but that wasn't the primary focus I had.  I just think the game industry is in a big rut right now, and there's too much in-breeding, but that's just an opinion.

Oh also. What I think will shine in this game in any case is the micro-world building. Not necessarily the big picture and story of the setting and all that. The little things, like this creature's twist on nanos or that particular gadget or that take on this particular aspect of the setting and so on. That's what Monte is really, really, really good at in terms of world building, I've found.

Quote from: Benoist;676946I'll probably get the game at some point, and either riff off some parts of the setting in my D&D campaign, maybe come up with some OD&D variants based on its rules so I can excise the "narrative/story" angle out of it, or just play it wholesale if it's not as bad as even Monte made it sound.

I am currently 80% of the way through the book and so far there are precisely two items which I might consider 'narrative':

• The list of skills is free form, pick what ever skills you like for your character.
• The GM can make an 'intrusion' which is basically a plot twist and give the PCs XP by way of compensation for making their life more difficult (i.e. more interesting); a player can reject this by buying off the complication with their own XP if they strongly object

That's it; all of it. No player scene editing, no choosing to fail for the betterment of the story. The irony is that, as I read the book, it gives a very old school vibe. Monte even emphasises 'rulings, not rules'. The game is a loose enough framework that all sorts of weird stuff can exist and the players won't feel agrieved because "that's not in the book".

By the way, here's the "Appendix N" for the game (called Appendix B in the book)

QuoteNONFICTION
Eternity: Our Next Billion Years, Michael Hanlon
Indistinguishable From Magic, Robert L. Forward
Nanotechnology, Mark and Daniel Ratner
Physics of the Impossible, Michio Kaku
The Physics of Superheroes, James Kakalios
Strange Matters, Tom Siegfried
Visions, Michio Kaku


FICTION
Airtight Garage, Moebius
At the Mountains of Madness, H.P. Lovecraft
Arzach, Moebius
The Book of the New Sun, Gene Wolfe
A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller Jr.
The City and the Stars, Arthur C. Clarke
Dancers at the End of Time, Michael Moorcock
Dreadstar, Jim Starlin (comics)
Dune, Frank Herbert
The Dying Earth, Jack Vance
Eon, Greg Bear
Eternity, Greg Bear
Eternals, Jack Kirby (comics)
Far Futures, ed. Gregory Benford
The History of the Runestaff, Michael Moorcock
The Incal, Alejandro Jodorowsky (comics)
Last and First Men, Olaf Stapledon
Neverness, David Zindell
New Gods (and the entire Fourth World series),
Jack Kirby (comics)
The Night Land, William Hope Hodgson
The Nine Billion Names of God, Arthur C. Clarke
Planetary, Warren Ellis (comics)
Prophet: Remission, Brandon Graham (comics)
Pump Six and Other Stories, Paolo Bacigalupi
Roadside Picnic, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky
Saga, Brian K. Vaughn (comics)
Star Man’s Son, Andre Norton
The Sword of Shannara, Terry Brooks
Timelike Infinity, Stephen Baxter
Viriconium, M. John Harrison
The Zothique Cycle, Clarke Ashton Smith

TELEVISION AND MOVIES
A.I.
Adventure Time
Cloud Atlas
The Fifth Element
Fringe
Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind
Oblivion (2013)

To the person who asked if you could play "Thundarr", well, Jack Kirby is a big influence...

Monte posted that there were several "Fringe" Easter eggs in the game--I've already found the amber device.  

And the picture of the Philethis looks very much like a Vorlon from Babylon 5...

I think the setting is interesting, but as I have a track record fir liking and making "distant future fantasy" settings, that may not be too surprising (albeit my setting is a bit more Zothique and Dying Earth and a bit less Book of the New Sun.)

The system leaves me less excited. I generally dislike spending your damage stats for success. While it seems more workable than some systems I have seen to this tune, I am not seeing a particular advantage to it. Further games without a well defined skill list generally leave me cold.

Quote from: dbm;676952I am currently 80% of the way through the book and so far ther are precisely two items which I might consider 'narrative':

• The list of skills is free form, pick what ever skills you like for your character.
• The GM can make an 'intrusion' which is basically a plot twist and give the PCs XP by way of compensation for making their life more difficult (i.e. more interesting); a player can reject this by buying off the complication with their own XP if they strongly object

That's it; all of it. No player scene editing, no choosing to fail for the betterment of the story. The irony is that, as I read the book, it gives a very old school vibe. Monte even emphasises 'rulings, not rules'. The game is a loose enough framework that all sorts of weird stuff can exist and the players won't feel agrieved because "that's not in the book".

OK. I'm completely cool with number 1. Number 2 would be excised from my games.

Another factor to bear in mind is the base level of competence that is assumed for PCs; Monte makes it clear that this isn't a 'zero to hero' game. A bandit, for example, is a Level 2 NPC. This means that, with no effort, no skill or special abilities a PC has a 75% chance of hitting him in combat and a 75% chance of dodging his attacks (players make all the rolls in Numenera). So a significant chunk of the time you won't need to spend your stat pool to achieve the levels of success you might get in other games. The Bandit has 6 damage points and a sword does a base of 4 so you only need to hit twice (or one hit with a natural 18+) to take him out.

Also, you spend Speed to dodge attacks, but suffer damage to Might when hit in combat; so you are kind of trading off a small bit of attrition on one stat to eliminate a (presumably greater) attrition on another stat. It's just another pacing mechanic but a bit more refined than having a single HP stat. If you were a tanked-up Glaive with heavy armour and shield then you probably wouldn't bother spending Speed to dodge attacks as you will have lots of Might and armour absorbs damage (shields make you harder to hit).

Quote from: Benoist;676959OK. I'm completely cool with number 1. Number 2 would be excised from my games.

Skills appear to be used mostly to determine bonuses, such as if you say you have skill X on your character sheet, you'd get a bonus for certain situations.  There's two levels, trained and specialized--unless it's a character specific skill it can't be used to affect combat.  Think of skills as a simple bonus to ability rolls.

GM intrusion is optional as listed, with one exception--a roll of a natural 1 on a task is considered a free "GM Intrusion" with no XP reward given to the player, but it doesn't necessarily mean the player fumbled, it's up to the GM to decide what happens.  (The opposite happens on 19 and 20, minor and major effects,
which can be made up by the GM or player but both have to agree on it).

Quote from: JRT;676963Skills appear to be used mostly to determine bonuses, such as if you say you have skill X on your character sheet, you'd get a bonus for certain situations.  There's two levels, trained and specialized--unless it's a character specific skill it can't be used to affect combat.  Think of skills as a simple bonus to ability rolls.

OK that's what I gathered from context. Thanks for the confirmation.

Quote from: JRT;676963GM intrusion is optional as listed, with one exception--a roll of a natural 1 on a task is considered a free "GM Intrusion" with no XP reward given to the player, but it doesn't necessarily mean the player fumbled, it's up to the GM to decide what happens.  (The opposite happens on 19 and 20, minor and major effects,
which can be made up by the GM or player but both have to agree on it).

Ah now that doesn't sound that bad, because I can see how you could play such effects from an in-character point of view, as opposed to a narrative-creation/authorial one.

Quote from: Benoist;676933I do think that something changed after he went through his "I quit designing games to concentrate on writing" period, and I do think there is something very different at work with Numenera. What exactly, I couldn't tell, but I know I really like pretty much everything Monte worked on for the past 15 years, whereas Numenera leaves me cold. It might be just that *I* changed, and I did in some gaming respects, but I don't think this is the only reason, or that it tells the whole story here.

I agree with all of that, and come from a similar background.  This product does not interest me.  But, that's based purely on my own feelings and speculations and current tastes.  I have not read it, so I could be wrong about it.

I just didn't like the "It's not OD&D so it's badwrongfun" from Joe (which you seemed to be supporting), and the "I envy his success so I will bash his personal life" from Kellri.  I think people should at least actually read the product before drawing those conclusions, as Monte Cook's past works don't warrant that level of automatic dismissal.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;676935I stated my thoughts.  Your analysis of my statements is irrelevant, really.

Because you're not here for a conversation, just so others can hear what you have to say and silently nod our heads? I think you picked the wrong forum to express your thoughts then.  If you don't want a response, don't fucking post in a public message board. But don't whine when you get the very thing this board is all about - which is an analysis of what you said and a response to it.

Quote from: Benoist;676933I do think that something changed after he went through his "I quit designing games to concentrate on writing" period, and I do think there is something very different at work with Numenera.

I read in one initial review that the game has a few digs at D&D in it. If that's true, and with his leaving the D&D 5th project last year, I think you're on to something.

I had some interest in Numenera, but it has slid from a game I might buy to one I'll have to play first.