Having recently begun delving into the Numenera systems I'm very appreciative of your insight and applications of EXP. I've had difficulty wrapping my head around how best to use EXP, having come from D&D, and offering Intrusions as Player buy-in is a wonderful way to present EXP as a resource. So thanks for the video, much appreciated!
EXCELLENT point of view on experience points. I almost want that written out word for word for my players, but I think I will just direct them here. Thanks!
I like your explanation of experiences and experience points. I've been thinking of something similar and landed on renaming XP as "advancement points." At the most basic, they help the character earn advancements, but like with your intrusions as experiences, they can also advance the story through intrusions for the GM or the character/player. I think this shift in terminology has helped onboard players of more traditional TTRPGs, as it's separate from the progress bar you mention. Most players subconsciously associate XP with the progress bar and are then much more reluctant to use the points for anything beyond character advancement purchases. Great video and commentary! I'm happy to have found your channel and can't wait to catch up on your other stuff!
Interesting video. Helpful. Pelgrane's 13th Age uses something akin to Cypher's intrusions with its Icon benefits, which players and GMs can collaborate on for on-the-fly changes to a scene. They're more explicitly a player resource, but a good GM can and should point out potential opportunities for using bennies in an appropriate situation. You could also look at systems like FFG's Genysis/Star Wars or even Free League's Aliens with its "stunt points" as having a sort of intrusion mechanic, albeit one tied to die rolls. FFG's system is particularly fluid IMO, letting you fail forward creatively by introducing complications a lot of the time when you fail to roll successes. Not as versatile as Cypher due to the mechanics involved, but it's nice that even "bad" rolls are an opportunity for some storytelling.
13th Age is such a wonderful source of cool mechanics like the Icons and the Escalation Die! I think there are a lot of similar rules to what you're talking about here--stunt points, etc--they're very adjacent to Intrusions and you can use them in similar ways--I think what Numenera/Cypher does however is understand the capacity for what those mechanics are and allows you to fill in the blanks for what you want to do with them--the negative side of that, I have begun to assume, is that the openness of the language and the mechanics can lead people to be a little uncertain how to use them as we're all sort of trained to expect rules to have very clear and direct "yeses" and "nos." So yeah, that versatility you talk about is what allows the Intrusion mechanic to emulate those experiences you find in other games which is a pretty wild thought!
This was very useful to me. COming from other game systems, I was always a bit confused as to what intrusions were supposed to be. I thought, I'm the GM, I made this situation, why am I offering my PCs XP for adjustments I'm making to my own creation? The points Lucas made were very useful, especially the point on how easy it is for players to reduce difficulty, and how intrusions can add some life into situations that would otherwise feel sort of routine.
Waaaaah 😭 Im not over Ignacio's connection with the little kid from Jyrek... They were about to be attacked by some giant light monster!!! He couldnt have that whole-ass family in danger! Theyre innocent civilians. That kid is like EIGHT at most. Boom. Player Intrusion to have Seraphina's diner be RIGHT THERE!
Intrusions are core part of the Cypher system and its good to see video about them. But it would be really helpful to support words with right pictures (intrusion cards, intrusion points, excerpts from the rules). Cause I feel like I am not watching the video, I am listening just audio. And audio almost without examples in the middle of conversation. Just theory.
I find Cypher System interesting as start you can lower the level of task by 4 with 2 from skill 2 from items/help and then spend 1 effort taking it down by 5 -> that means lvl11 tas would be now lvl 6 task, or roll of 18 minimum so possible. Now I love the idea that that the enemy cult is trying to destroy the world by summoning lvl 11 god like monster who is the lowest of the lowest god like beast. The BBEG would be lvl 16 god like entety and Cuthulu would probably be Level 17. Now if I read rules right your weapon having +3 should be counted as lowering the level by 1 so having +3 sword is -1 level basically so you can't have also -2 from help and other items to the level. But lvl17 is duable -> having sword of +1 while adding power gauntlets with belt of strength and having spesialised using great swords lowering the level by 2 and spending 6 efforts to lower the task down you in theory can dmg lvl17 entity in Cypher System. Am I wrong asuming lvl17 is Duable Rules as Written or can you in any way battle against lvl18 OR is it not possible to use +1 sword with all that to get roll of 21 and succeed lvl 17 attack other than over leveling past lvl 6 which was mentioned in rules :D As Electrical Engineer I'm more interested in stuff like that ^ Rules as Written vs Rules as Indented vs Rules as Used :^) D&D 5e has few rules I chance or go with RaW like Beast Master says "your pet will follow your command by best of its abilities" Me to my pet: "Murder that enemy!" My pet to me: *hits once, deals 1dmg, enemy still standing. Looks at me "I did good yes?"* Like come one! if I order my pet to murder it does not use my Action to Command it Every turn to Attack. The Fucking Dire Wolf is not some metally challenged Gold Fish for love of god xD Also in testing this in no way brakes balance -.- vs Half-Orc Fighter using Great Axe -> Lore Bard or Divination Wizard casted Hold Person -> 3d12 +3 twice is much more dmg than 2d6 + 3 from wolf and 1d8 + 1d6 + 3 .... or 3d6 + 1d8 + 6 versus 6d12 + 6 -> I always ruled Beast Master for Ranger like this. I don't know how we consider it in the long run? Someone should do math if Beast Master's Beast got free attack would the DPS be same as the other basic Ranger? I love Beast Master but not because they are only true people able to have a friend who helps you. And my god it gets hearth broken when they die :( bit off topic rant about how people blindly follow rules and RaI when RaW say literally for Beast Master's Pet "will follow your commands best of its abilites" translates You order the pet to murder someone, why the fuck would the pet stop attacking if the enemy is not dead yet? -> also not op :D tested in 5 different games. Also makes Ranger feel little better :3
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but I've only ever played two sessions of RPG before, so I'm very new to this. There's one thing I don't fully understand. How do you differentiate between a player intrusion and just a "normal action"? If a character was in a priest's room full of old objects, wouldn't grabbing one of those to defend yourself be just a "normal thing" to do? Or was the fact that it was a very specific object that the player made up which made it a player intrusion? Would it not have been a player intrusion if the player grabbed an object that you described before?
As with everything, that comes down the individual GM and game. In your example, I would view "grabbing an item to use as an improvised weapon" as an action. I would let them describe the item and rule it a light, medium, or heavy weapon. However. If they said, "I am grabbing an item with religious iconography on it, in the hopes the inherent 'divinity' does extra damage to the vampire." My response would be "For 1XP, I think we can make that happen.%
In the CSR as well as points in Numenera Discovery (I think), it does mention that one approach is to split the XP into two different kinds: one strictly for character advancement, another for in-game use, benefit purchase, etc.
At about the six minutes mark, Lucas Santana offers a GM intrusion without saying what that intrusion will be before requiring the players to decide whether or not to accept it. Am I reading that correctly? If so, that seems very odd.
I think that’s like... the fun of it. Usually you just introduce a GM intrusion by saying “Ok GM intrusion: this happens” but like... if you say “do you want a GM intrusion?” The player gets to like... make the choice to accept it. And it makes it more alluring to say yes because then it’s like “this could be really cool!”
So without doing a rulebook dive, I don't think there are necessarily any hard lines in the rules that state you should or should not announce what the intrusion will be before doing it--but it does seem like a central part of the spirit of this rule is for things to be unexpected, especially for the players. However, as I kind of say in this video, it's important to find a balance and your own style and approach with these rules. For my games, I like to keep the nature of Intrusions a surprise. If you find a different approach that works for you and your group, that's totally a valid way to play the mechanic!
@@redgoateyes My issue, I suppose, is that the player has nothing on which to base their decision. I usually describe the intrusion and if the player refuses it, we say why it didn't affect them, rather than why it didn't happen. Not saying one way is right and the other is wrong. It's horses for courses.
Well spotted! Don't sound odd to me though. If I remember correctly, the rulebook is also not entirely clear on that. :/ I think it is important to read the room and to gauge the intrusion's impact against the current situation. 😮 Sometimes you as the GM may notice the thrill of excitement in your player's face as they make up their mind about whether or not they want to take a risk. Then feel free to stay mysterious about the intrusion. You can play with their curiosity. Either they want to find out what will happen and trust they come out on top of it, or they want to play it safe. 😏 🙂At other times you may read expectation in their faces: They know somethings coming and are just waiting for it. Why not go ahead and tell them? Both are viable options. And both contribute to the game, if you ask me. It is - as so many things are - a justice call. I mostly ask myself, "If the Intrusion is refused, do I want the 🎲PLAYER to decide that nothing happens or do I want their 🎭CHARACTER to wiggle out of it." If the former, I usually don't tell them anything unless they accept. If the latter, I establish the narrative before I let them decide. But not that it mattered much, I guess. As long as your table enjoys your GM Intrusions, all's fine, right?
Not sure I like the notion that a GM needs consent from their players to have complications happen... Kinda strikes me as a roller coaster stopping each time a loop comes up to ask if it's okay for the riders. They saw the coaster ahead of time, they waited in line, and they clearly trust the coaster to give them a good time already, right? Don't get me wrong; I love the XP intrusion system. Just not overly thrilled about the way Santana there frames it.
Having recently begun delving into the Numenera systems I'm very appreciative of your insight and applications of EXP. I've had difficulty wrapping my head around how best to use EXP, having come from D&D, and offering Intrusions as Player buy-in is a wonderful way to present EXP as a resource.
So thanks for the video, much appreciated!
Everything is becoming clearer to me and I see how to apply this on the table. Thanks for these explanatory videos
EXCELLENT point of view on experience points. I almost want that written out word for word for my players, but I think I will just direct them here. Thanks!
I like your explanation of experiences and experience points. I've been thinking of something similar and landed on renaming XP as "advancement points." At the most basic, they help the character earn advancements, but like with your intrusions as experiences, they can also advance the story through intrusions for the GM or the character/player. I think this shift in terminology has helped onboard players of more traditional TTRPGs, as it's separate from the progress bar you mention. Most players subconsciously associate XP with the progress bar and are then much more reluctant to use the points for anything beyond character advancement purchases.
Great video and commentary! I'm happy to have found your channel and can't wait to catch up on your other stuff!
Tx. Loved the content n audio quality.
Thanks! Great video, really nicely done.
Interesting video. Helpful.
Pelgrane's 13th Age uses something akin to Cypher's intrusions with its Icon benefits, which players and GMs can collaborate on for on-the-fly changes to a scene. They're more explicitly a player resource, but a good GM can and should point out potential opportunities for using bennies in an appropriate situation.
You could also look at systems like FFG's Genysis/Star Wars or even Free League's Aliens with its "stunt points" as having a sort of intrusion mechanic, albeit one tied to die rolls. FFG's system is particularly fluid IMO, letting you fail forward creatively by introducing complications a lot of the time when you fail to roll successes. Not as versatile as Cypher due to the mechanics involved, but it's nice that even "bad" rolls are an opportunity for some storytelling.
13th Age is such a wonderful source of cool mechanics like the Icons and the Escalation Die!
I think there are a lot of similar rules to what you're talking about here--stunt points, etc--they're very adjacent to Intrusions and you can use them in similar ways--I think what Numenera/Cypher does however is understand the capacity for what those mechanics are and allows you to fill in the blanks for what you want to do with them--the negative side of that, I have begun to assume, is that the openness of the language and the mechanics can lead people to be a little uncertain how to use them as we're all sort of trained to expect rules to have very clear and direct "yeses" and "nos." So yeah, that versatility you talk about is what allows the Intrusion mechanic to emulate those experiences you find in other games which is a pretty wild thought!
Awesome video as per usual.
This was very useful to me. COming from other game systems, I was always a bit confused as to what intrusions were supposed to be. I thought, I'm the GM, I made this situation, why am I offering my PCs XP for adjustments I'm making to my own creation? The points Lucas made were very useful, especially the point on how easy it is for players to reduce difficulty, and how intrusions can add some life into situations that would otherwise feel sort of routine.
thanks a lot it was ueful
Waaaaah 😭 Im not over Ignacio's connection with the little kid from Jyrek... They were about to be attacked by some giant light monster!!! He couldnt have that whole-ass family in danger! Theyre innocent civilians. That kid is like EIGHT at most. Boom. Player Intrusion to have Seraphina's diner be RIGHT THERE!
Intrusions are core part of the Cypher system and its good to see video about them.
But it would be really helpful to support words with right pictures (intrusion cards, intrusion points, excerpts from the rules).
Cause I feel like I am not watching the video, I am listening just audio. And audio almost without examples in the middle of conversation. Just theory.
I find Cypher System interesting as start you can lower the level of task by 4 with 2 from skill 2 from items/help and then spend 1 effort taking it down by 5 -> that means lvl11 tas would be now lvl 6 task, or roll of 18 minimum so possible. Now I love the idea that that the enemy cult is trying to destroy the world by summoning lvl 11 god like monster who is the lowest of the lowest god like beast. The BBEG would be lvl 16 god like entety and Cuthulu would probably be Level 17.
Now if I read rules right your weapon having +3 should be counted as lowering the level by 1 so having +3 sword is -1 level basically so you can't have also -2 from help and other items to the level. But lvl17 is duable -> having sword of +1 while adding power gauntlets with belt of strength and having spesialised using great swords lowering the level by 2 and spending 6 efforts to lower the task down you in theory can dmg lvl17 entity in Cypher System.
Am I wrong asuming lvl17 is Duable Rules as Written or can you in any way battle against lvl18 OR is it not possible to use +1 sword with all that to get roll of 21 and succeed lvl 17 attack other than over leveling past lvl 6 which was mentioned in rules :D
As Electrical Engineer I'm more interested in stuff like that ^ Rules as Written vs Rules as Indented vs Rules as Used
:^) D&D 5e has few rules I chance or go with RaW like Beast Master says "your pet will follow your command by best of its abilities"
Me to my pet: "Murder that enemy!"
My pet to me: *hits once, deals 1dmg, enemy still standing. Looks at me "I did good yes?"*
Like come one! if I order my pet to murder it does not use my Action to Command it Every turn to Attack. The Fucking Dire Wolf is not some metally challenged Gold Fish for love of god xD Also in testing this in no way brakes balance -.- vs Half-Orc Fighter using Great Axe -> Lore Bard or Divination Wizard casted Hold Person -> 3d12 +3 twice is much more dmg than 2d6 + 3 from wolf and 1d8 + 1d6 + 3 .... or 3d6 + 1d8 + 6 versus 6d12 + 6 -> I always ruled Beast Master for Ranger like this. I don't know how we consider it in the long run? Someone should do math if Beast Master's Beast got free attack would the DPS be same as the other basic Ranger? I love Beast Master but not because they are only true people able to have a friend who helps you. And my god it gets hearth broken when they die :(
bit off topic rant about how people blindly follow rules and RaI when RaW say literally for Beast Master's Pet "will follow your commands best of its abilites" translates You order the pet to murder someone, why the fuck would the pet stop attacking if the enemy is not dead yet? -> also not op :D tested in 5 different games. Also makes Ranger feel little better :3
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but I've only ever played two sessions of RPG before, so I'm very new to this. There's one thing I don't fully understand. How do you differentiate between a player intrusion and just a "normal action"? If a character was in a priest's room full of old objects, wouldn't grabbing one of those to defend yourself be just a "normal thing" to do? Or was the fact that it was a very specific object that the player made up which made it a player intrusion? Would it not have been a player intrusion if the player grabbed an object that you described before?
As with everything, that comes down the individual GM and game.
In your example, I would view "grabbing an item to use as an improvised weapon" as an action. I would let them describe the item and rule it a light, medium, or heavy weapon. However. If they said, "I am grabbing an item with religious iconography on it, in the hopes the inherent 'divinity' does extra damage to the vampire." My response would be "For 1XP, I think we can make that happen.%
@@CireLepeod That makes perfect sense! Thank you so much for your answer :)!
Another question, why not separate the xp in 2 ways, one of narrative points and another in level up?
In the CSR as well as points in Numenera Discovery (I think), it does mention that one approach is to split the XP into two different kinds: one strictly for character advancement, another for in-game use, benefit purchase, etc.
At about the six minutes mark, Lucas Santana offers a GM intrusion without saying what that intrusion will be before requiring the players to decide whether or not to accept it. Am I reading that correctly? If so, that seems very odd.
I think that’s like... the fun of it. Usually you just introduce a GM intrusion by saying “Ok GM intrusion: this happens” but like... if you say “do you want a GM intrusion?” The player gets to like... make the choice to accept it. And it makes it more alluring to say yes because then it’s like “this could be really cool!”
So without doing a rulebook dive, I don't think there are necessarily any hard lines in the rules that state you should or should not announce what the intrusion will be before doing it--but it does seem like a central part of the spirit of this rule is for things to be unexpected, especially for the players.
However, as I kind of say in this video, it's important to find a balance and your own style and approach with these rules. For my games, I like to keep the nature of Intrusions a surprise. If you find a different approach that works for you and your group, that's totally a valid way to play the mechanic!
@@redgoateyes My issue, I suppose, is that the player has nothing on which to base their decision.
I usually describe the intrusion and if the player refuses it, we say why it didn't affect them, rather than why it didn't happen.
Not saying one way is right and the other is wrong. It's horses for courses.
@@THEINFINITECONSTRUCT Yeah, each to their own way. That's no problem. I'd not considered keeping it secret.
Well spotted! Don't sound odd to me though. If I remember correctly, the rulebook is also not entirely clear on that. :/ I think it is important to read the room and to gauge the intrusion's impact against the current situation.
😮 Sometimes you as the GM may notice the thrill of excitement in your player's face as they make up their mind about whether or not they want to take a risk. Then feel free to stay mysterious about the intrusion. You can play with their curiosity. Either they want to find out what will happen and trust they come out on top of it, or they want to play it safe. 😏
🙂At other times you may read expectation in their faces: They know somethings coming and are just waiting for it. Why not go ahead and tell them?
Both are viable options. And both contribute to the game, if you ask me. It is - as so many things are - a justice call. I mostly ask myself, "If the Intrusion is refused, do I want the 🎲PLAYER to decide that nothing happens or do I want their 🎭CHARACTER to wiggle out of it." If the former, I usually don't tell them anything unless they accept. If the latter, I establish the narrative before I let them decide.
But not that it mattered much, I guess. As long as your table enjoys your GM Intrusions, all's fine, right?
Not sure I like the notion that a GM needs consent from their players to have complications happen... Kinda strikes me as a roller coaster stopping each time a loop comes up to ask if it's okay for the riders. They saw the coaster ahead of time, they waited in line, and they clearly trust the coaster to give them a good time already, right?
Don't get me wrong; I love the XP intrusion system. Just not overly thrilled about the way Santana there frames it.