Tell Me About the Cypher System

[Reynard]

I'd probably end up ranting about Cypher, as I'm rather unfond of a lot of elements of it, so I'm probably not a good one to respond.

I definitely don't want to read only gushing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This isn't a "positive-only" thread, so rant away! I'd like to hear all the good and the bad about the Cypher system.

As long as we avoid insulting people, I think we're good.

I'm probably also kind of trying to avoid the uncomfortable feeling of being a crank who feels a need to bash on a game he dislikes every time it comes up, but I suppose its relevant here.

Okay, I'll summarize a few of the more important ones.

1. The way the pools work is, I think, malformed from the get-go. Having the same pools that take damage from certain kinds of attacks being the pools that are used to improve odds of success for the associated attributes is, frankly, kind of perverse, and particularly bad in the commonest cases as it tends to catch warrior types across the kneecaps.

2. The dependence on cyphers (think various kinds of consumable magic items) makes very little sense in a lot of genres, and the attempts to recast them in ways that don't make them so blatantly weird while keeping the mechanic shows just how specific to Cypher's first iteration they were and that they're a component that is carried forward because the system doesn't work quite right without them, whether they make sense or not.

3. Conflating extremely short term benefit resources and permanent improvement together resources is a problem everywhere I've ever seen it. The fact Cypher has a somewhat convoluted form of that doesn't make it better.

4. Making most of your mechanical distinction that isn't attribute or class based (and there are only four of each, three for classes in some of the incarnations) being hyper-specific and pretty clearly ad-hoc in design is something I've somewhat come to expect from D20 derivatives, but having them lumped together that big means that its remarkably easy to have character concepts that you're out of luck with unless the GM is willing to create a brand new one even though there isn't a really good metric to tell you what's reasonable. This isn't an uncommon problem with some class systems but it can be particularly glaring if you're trying to make a general-use rather than setting-specific game. Its particularly a standout in a game that otherwise usually has no skill system as such.

 

[rabindranath72]

I get the reasoning behing it, but to me ultimately, it felt the wrong way round, even in Numenera. I can see how having a semi-unique thing where you don't need to worry about it being OP makes sense from a fun-with-rules perspective, but I can't think of many settings where it doesn't feel forced and artificial. It feels like "rules design first, setting verisimillitude second (or third or fourth)", which is a totally legitimate design perspective, but also one that really turns me off.

This. The setting books are extremely interesting in terms of themes and ideas, but the rules themselves feel, most of the time, like fitting a square peg in a round hole; cyphers in particular strain verisimilitude.

 

[ruemere]

NOTE:
There is a simple fix for the issue of offensive+defensive resources. Create fourth pool, call it HP. The size of the pool should be 2*Might+Speed+1/2*Intellect for heroic characters, half of that for NPCs and typical opposition, 1/5th for minions (Cypher systems feature ranged weaponry, so 2*Might is a must so that melee champs do not feel inferior).

The fix makes the game more D&Dish, but at the same time locks it around 3rd level making it safer, and at the same time, not making it too comfortable. The advanced characters may feel like 4-6th level which is a sweet spot for E6 lovers.

 

[Swanosaurus]

1. The way the pools work is, I think, malformed from the get-go. Having the same pools that take damage from certain kinds of attacks being the pools that are used to improve odds of success for the associated attributes is, frankly, kind of perverse, and particularly bad in the commonest cases as it tends to catch warrior types across the kneecaps.

That's actually one part of the system that I really like - spending pool points for tests can be kind of annoying because it sometimes causes analysis paralysis, but the combat death spiral makes it worth it, as far as I am concerned. It's not my favourite combat system, but I like its dynamics a lot more than most hit point based systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's actually one part of the system that I really like - spending pool points for tests can be kind of annoying because it sometimes causes analysis paralysis, but the combat death spiral makes it worth it, as far as I am concerned. It's not my favourite combat system, but I like its dynamics a lot more than most hit point based systems.

Well, since I don't think death spirals are good in general, and don't think a mechanic that motivates people to stick to failure rather than take a chance on using resources, those dynamics are an unmixed flaw to me.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I rated it as pretty good originally and I stick by that answer. I particularly enjoyed how fast it played at the table, the ease of using it in different settings, and the freedom it gave me to use and augment existing rules. The critical rules in particular are something I like to port over to other games.

On the flip side there are things I've changed to make the game better for me. Cyphers are fun in Numenera, but don't always fit well in other settings. Sometimes I just make Cyphers act more like quick item slots for potions, grenades, med kits, traps, etc. For settings with a lot of combat it can be nice to have an HP pool before taking damage to your other pools. I don't think it's necessary at all to do this from a mechanical stand point. But it does feel better. My players liked it at least. Lastly, the XP system rewarding exploration instead of fighting is great. However, making the use of XP short vs long term benefits didn't work for me. Instead I settled on a system where you have to spend your XP on enough short term benefits to unlock advancement. I highly suggest this change for anyone that doesn't like XP as written. You'll probably want to increase the advancement cost to 6 or 8 depending on how much XP you're giving out.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Well, since I don't think death spirals are good in general, and don't think a mechanic that motivates people to stick to failure rather than take a chance on using resources, those dynamics are an unmixed flaw to me.

I wouldn't call them a flaw, since I think they pretty much work as designed and intended - yes, you'll only spend points on defense if you want to avoid a specific effect or if something causes a sh**load of damage, but that's fine, I think. What I like is that all attrition has a visible effect on your ability to perform; I get that a lot of people don't like it at all, but for me, it's one way to keep combat from being about bags of abstract HP. (I'd still prefer detailed damage systems like in RuneQuest if I had all the time in the world to learn the rules, but something like Cypher System is the next best easy way to achieve it for me).
It's not flawed in the same sense as the experience system, which quite obviously doesn't do what the designers claim it would do (they explicitly state that it doesn't matter whether players tend to spend XP on successes/short term benefits or long term advancement, "because it all evens out in the end", which is, by any logic, total nonsene. If you spend more on short term successes, your abilities will be lower, and you'll need to spend even more on buying successes later on to keep up). Though the XP system, luckily, is easily fixed - we came up with the same system that DeviousQuail suggests: Just convert XP spent on buying successes into advancement currency, and your fine.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wouldn't call them a flaw, since I think they pretty much work as designed and intended

I'll give you its not a design error (in the sense of not doing what was intended), but I still think its a design problem (in that what it does isn't desirable).

The problem with death spirals is I no longer feel they're either realistic nor produce good outcomes, so...

 

[ruemere]

I'll give you its not a design error (in the sense of not doing what was intended), but I still think its a design problem (in that what it does isn't desirable).

The problem with death spirals is I no longer feel they're either realistic nor produce good outcomes, so...

Agree here. Linking abilities directly to health resource means that in the end, after any resource intensive encounter you end up exhausted regardless of whether you were successful or not.

This is hardly a great design if you feel bad regardless of your performance. It's like doing a boring corpo work that feels utterly meaningless because regardless of the outcome you get nothing out of it. This is pretty difficult to enjoy - unless you don't mind bringing corporate drone mentality to a gaming table.

Also, one of the great challenges of resource management is to use it wisely. To gain advantage and profits. Meanwhile, if you need to spend the same resources in either case, you just don't get to feel the joy.

Of course, one can argue that with enough accomplishment you can build your character so that you spend less or even no effort - and that's fine, though still it comes late and feels slightly underwhelming.

Hence my solution above - build a separate pool for health based on you character preferences. It worked for D&D, FALLOUT, GURPS and E6. It should work here, too.