PDA

View Full Version : Is Numenera a diet 3.5 D&D?



Rhedyn
2019-01-25, 08:23 AM
So humble bundle is selling all the PDFs for $15 and I'm just finding this system hilarious. Don't get me wrong, it's cool and has really high production values with a kitchen sink setting that took the time to earn the kitchen sink elements.

Still, it's got classes, "HP", and the d20. All premises that I feel leads to a lot of crunch. It has some narrative mechanics, but compared actual Storyteller RPGs they don't seem that critical to me or particularly deep.

So I'm giving it a gander and I'm getting mad 3.5 vibes. Obviously casters > martials because it's a Monte Cook game, but at least they don't seem mathematically screwed this time. Character Type + Focus is basically a character class and "Adjectives" are basically 5e backgrounds before 5e backgrounds were a thing.
Cyphers seem to me to basically be magic items just without the 3.5 item slot system and instead arbitrary limits like 5e. Boy is there a lot of them. And a lot of artifacts.
Also characters can get a lot of abilities.
Oh and of course, we have an in-depth crafting system. Because of course we do. Not mention all the other splats and thick bestiaries that go with the system.

Consensus
2019-01-25, 11:03 AM
I've played and DMed a few games of numenera and play in an ongoing pathfinder game (DMed a oneshot in PF as well, but it's not my kind of system) These two are nothing alike IMO, although I have very little experience outside of D&D-alikes. The d20 rolls with no modifier (very few exceptions) and is against a target number representing the difficulty which scales by three, going up or down levels depending on the factors of the situation. This and how health, death, and armor works are the ONLY things the DM needs to know, and can be fit on to a standard sized note card. It's really nice.

The "HP" is also your stats, resources, and health. For many class abilities you spend from your stat pools, and also you can spend three of a stat to lower the difficulty of a task involving it by a level. (These costs are reduced by a thing called edge, which is tied to a stat and determined by class) The stat pools are also reduced when taking damage, first might, then speed, then intellect, after each one hits zero the character has more penalties. This, in my experience, is a very different experience of resource management than 3.pf. It's much more engaging and dynamic while still being easy to use. It also mitigates the problem of 1 hp=fully functional 0 hp=dying in multiple ways.

With the classes: There's three classes in numenera: glaive, nano, and jack: unabashedly fighter mage and rogue in that order. (The generic version of the game engine, cypher, has a few more classes.) However, the classes are more modular than pf, or even 5e. With each level of class advancement coming with the choice of a few more abilities. Mages do have much more powerful options, but the system doesn't shy from giving the fighter insta-kill abilities at high levels. I find that a wide array of concepts can be made with the characters although sometimes they can seem a bit mechanically similar. However, character diversity really shines with adjectives and focus. Adjectives are like 5e backgrounds as you said, but have more impact on the character, due to the more fluid skill system and giving more stat points. Also, rather than telling a character's pre-adventure history like a background the adjective informs your character's personality and can be great inspiration. The focuses are very diverse (especially with more options from the generic system) and really give your character a unique feel. They also increase by the class level, and are generally useful for all character types, although not all of them are, which is a gripe. They also vary in power but nothing is too beyond the curve imo. They're very fun on the whole, and are often more interesting that the characters type to me. There's stuff like: communicating with machines, being a cyborg, using illusions, gaining a berserker rage. There are a few boring ones that only raise stats right away, but that adds endurance to your character so it's still more interesting than a stat bonus would be in D&D.

On the topic of narrative mechanics: this is the most narrative rpg I've played and I found them lackluster. I'm rusty on this, but there was a rule I mostly ignored about when a 1 is rolled then the dm is supposed to screw the players over inw ays unrelated to the roll unless they spend an xp, which I just thought was dumb, since from my perspective I'd describe the natural consequences of a failure, rather than just using it as a sign of the character's bad luck.

That moves me on to the topic of xp and advancement, which is very different from D&D. Xp is purely given for objectives and exploration. Not combat or treasure. I think the idea is nice but unformed: there's not really any examples of pace of advancement or xp values to what types of events. Xp can be spent as a luck resource, which I don't think is the best but I think its an okay mechanic but could really give or take on it. Your character advances through spending xp on skills, stats and things like that. Each type costs about four xp and there are four types of rewards to buy with xp (I may be wrong on these numbers, I haven't played for a while, the point is the numbers are low) and once all types of rewards are purchased, the character goes up a 'tier' which I called a level when referring to classes. There are four tiers. I like this system as it is very custom in its advancement and is also more granular and grounded than D&D I find.

Cyphers: they're all one to around six use magic items. They'res a limit to how many you can carry, and they're very fun to roll for at character generation. They're not too powerful and give players creative solutions to problems that won't be a long term crutch. Think limited use immovable rods rather than +2 swords. Artifacts I can't say much about as I never introduced one. From what it seems they're useful pieces of technology that act as reliable magic items.

Crafting: I gotta say, I don't remember anything about it an never used it, but I don't remember it taking more than a few pages. Which is a lot for this system, granted.

I don't recall there being a splat problem either, but the bestiary is mostly useful for concepts, as the stats are insanely simple, and I think by and large its a useful edition. (It's definitely more interesting than the default setting over view, which crushed my interesting image of the world and just left me with 'medieval fantasy but magic is secretly tech')

Overall, its smooth as butter to run on the gm side of the screen, easy to play with an engaging resource management mechanic, with a tendency to produce interesting and unique characters, in a promising but lackluster setting, with vague narrative and xp mechanics. I like it, and think it's quite different from 3.pf

Morty
2019-01-25, 11:11 AM
"Diet 3.5" is unfair, as Consensus explained, but I would say that it's a system that tries do do its own thing but is burdened with D&D baggage. The classes are probably the most visible part of it. And the general "if you want something interesting rather than + to numbers, it better be magic" attitude.

some guy
2019-01-25, 11:48 AM
Sure, it could do with a lot less crunch. Glaives are a bit weird for giving almost only combat options for a combat light game. But the system is so different from the dnd 3.0/3.5/pf, that calling it a diet dnd 3.5 is an incredibly weird call. It doesn't even have hp, pools are a different way of dealing with damage, in that way it works way more like gumshoe, but no one calls Numenera a diet version of gumshoe.
Games that use the same kind of die can be completely different games.
It runs and plays so much faster than 3.5. Running it is a breeze when compared with 3.5.

I will give you that creating characters takes way too much time, thanks to an overabundance of options. Players that like the amount of player options in 3.5 and pf will probably also like that in numenera.


For 1 dollar you get everything you need to run and play it. I would advise anyone to check it out, it might not be for everyone and it has flaws, but I'm incredibly fond of systems that are easy to run.

Rhedyn
2019-01-25, 12:24 PM
Sure, it could do with a lot less crunch. Glaives are a bit weird for giving almost only combat options for a combat light game. But the system is so different from the dnd 3.0/3.5/pf, that calling it a diet dnd 3.5 is an incredibly weird call. It doesn't even have hp, pools are a different way of dealing with damage, in that way it works way more like gumshoe, but no one calls Numenera a diet version of gumshoe.
Games that use the same kind of die can be completely different games.
It runs and plays so much faster than 3.5. Running it is a breeze when compared with 3.5.

I will give you that creating characters takes way too much time, thanks to an overabundance of options. Players that like the amount of player options in 3.5 and pf will probably also like that in numenera.


For 1 dollar you get everything you need to run and play it. I would advise anyone to check it out, it might not be for everyone and it has flaws, but I'm incredibly fond of systems that are easy to run.

I think some people are getting hung up on the "math" and "crunch" of 3.5. I am talking about the other aspects.

Monsters have "HP" you do Damage to them. Monsters have a "CR" which basically defines how hard doing anything with them is and how much of a danger it is to you.

All the fiddly bits are completely different but the overall structure is basically 3.5. "Make a character, get loot, do crazy **** with the combos".

gkathellar
2019-01-25, 12:57 PM
I think some people are getting hung up on the "math" and "crunch" of 3.5. I am talking about the other aspects.

Monsters have "HP" you do Damage to them. Monsters have a "CR" which basically defines how hard doing anything with them is and how much of a danger it is to you.

All the fiddly bits are completely different but the overall structure is basically 3.5. "Make a character, get loot, do crazy **** with the combos".

I think most people don't strongly associate those things with 3.5 in particular. Some of those elements originated in OD&D, and all of them pervade 4E and 5E and lots of d20 games besides. Personally, I would say that 3.5 is characterized more than anything by (a) a high degree of simulationism, (b) system mastery, and (c) use of numerous interlocking options and progression systems. In those respects, Numenera is pretty different. I certainly wouldn't call it a diet 3.5.

But obviously if you want to define the characteristic elements of 3.5 as a group of things that it shares with Numenera, then it shares its characteristic elements with Numenera.

some guy
2019-01-25, 12:57 PM
I think some people are getting hung up on the "math" and "crunch" of 3.5. I am talking about the other aspects.

Monsters have "HP" you do Damage to them. Monsters have a "CR" which basically defines how hard doing anything with them is and how much of a danger it is to you.

All the fiddly bits are completely different but the overall structure is basically 3.5. "Make a character, get loot, do crazy **** with the combos".

The "CR" is a fair point, but lots of rpg's have monsters with hp that can be damaged. In lots of exploratory games loot can be gained.
Honest question: are there optimization forums for numenera? I'm not seeing the combo potential in numenera, but that might also be due to the people I play with.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-25, 01:01 PM
I think some people are getting hung up on the "math" and "crunch" of 3.5. I am talking about the other aspects.

Monsters have "HP" you do Damage to them. Monsters have a "CR" which basically defines how hard doing anything with them is and how much of a danger it is to you.

Well, but then, that's an incredibly broad definition of 3.5-isms (or even D&D-isms). Monsters have hit point? So do monsters in, for instance, the old White Wolf games. Opponents have a difficulty rating? That's kind of been something most games with any kind of combat focus have been moving towards (and D&D has been moving vaguely towards since 1974, when the level of a monster was a weird combo of their hit dice and of what dungeon level they appeared on the wandering monster table).


All the fiddly bits are completely different but the overall structure is basically 3.5. "Make a character, get loot, do crazy **** with the combos".

Okay, the parts of the game your referencing that are similar to D&D 3.5 are:

Character creation, particularly character build, is clearly an important part of the game and the game's intended fun.
Treasure/loot/"magic items" are a significant part of the reward for successful adventuring
Various parts of character creation and building allow you to do synergistically-enhanced actions ('combos' as we've taken to call them).

Plus as others have pointed out:

Classes
Levels
Wizards get more options on what problems they are able to solve.

Those about right? Well, to be clear, you are very much not wrong about any of those. It's just an incredibly broad net to call these 3.5-isms (or even D&D-isms).. Various flavors of Shadowrun or MechWarrior (or GURPS or HERO System) focus extensively on building your character. Exalted is all about making combos. Even games like Traveller have mad loot as a major reward (be it a new ship, or upgrading to battledress armor). 3.5 is certainly the pinnacle of D&D buying into the clearly defined CR and maximum build-combo-focus, so 3.5 is the most Numenera-like version of D&D.

I am currently playing in Monte Cook's next project, Invisible Suns, which is somewhat similar, but a d10-based game without a single level mechanic and where everyone is a spellcaster, and my general reaction has been "holy cow, this is Mage: the Ascension if it were designed by someone other than the 90s White Wolf crew!"

I would put Numenera in the category of 'things that are still bound to the D&D tropes of class and level, while not being distinctly/strictly a D&D-alike (for these purposes, Palladium and Tunnels&Trolls are D&D-alikes), which also has some fingerprints of Cook, who has a lot of fingerprints all over 3.5. I can taste similar flavor combinations, but I don't feel they play out the same way.

gkathellar
2019-01-25, 01:08 PM
I am currently playing in Monte Cook's next project, Invisible Suns, which is somewhat similar, but a d10-based game without a single level mechanic and where everyone is a spellcaster, and my general reaction has been "holy cow, this is Mage: the Ascension if it were designed by someone other than the 90s White Wolf crew!"

I thought that was what it sounded like from the description. Good to have confirmation.

Bohandas
2019-01-25, 01:14 PM
Just a tangential word of advice, this thread might get more responses if the title was reworded. I saw the word "diet" in the thread name and nearly dismissed it as a spam thread until I saw that eight people had replied to it.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-25, 01:16 PM
I thought that was what it sounded like from the description. Good to have confirmation.

I have another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?578857-Monte-Cook-s-Invisible-Suns-first-impression-and-perspective) going where I am reviewing it (and after suggestions, will be adding material tonight).

Florian
2019-01-25, 02:12 PM
Diet? No. But the system seems to be geared towards heavy compatibility with the D&D crowd.

Rhedyn
2019-01-25, 03:01 PM
Well, but then, that's an incredibly broad definition of 3.5-isms (or even D&D-isms). Monsters have hit point? So do monsters in, for instance, the old White Wolf games. Opponents have a difficulty rating? That's kind of been something most games with any kind of combat focus have been moving towards (and D&D has been moving vaguely towards since 1974, when the level of a monster was a weird combo of their hit dice and of what dungeon level they appeared on the wandering monster table).



Okay, the parts of the game your referencing that are similar to D&D 3.5 are:

Character creation, particularly character build, is clearly an important part of the game and the game's intended fun.
Treasure/loot/"magic items" are a significant part of the reward for successful adventuring
Various parts of character creation and building allow you to do synergistically-enhanced actions ('combos' as we've taken to call them).

Plus as others have pointed out:

Classes
Levels
Wizards get more options on what problems they are able to solve.

Those about right? Well, to be clear, you are very much not wrong about any of those. It's just an incredibly broad net to call these 3.5-isms (or even D&D-isms).. Various flavors of Shadowrun or MechWarrior (or GURPS or HERO System) focus extensively on building your character. Exalted is all about making combos. Even games like Traveller have mad loot as a major reward (be it a new ship, or upgrading to battledress armor). 3.5 is certainly the pinnacle of D&D buying into the clearly defined CR and maximum build-combo-focus, so 3.5 is the most Numenera-like version of D&D.

I am currently playing in Monte Cook's next project, Invisible Suns, which is somewhat similar, but a d10-based game without a single level mechanic and where everyone is a spellcaster, and my general reaction has been "holy cow, this is Mage: the Ascension if it were designed by someone other than the 90s White Wolf crew!"

I would put Numenera in the category of 'things that are still bound to the D&D tropes of class and level, while not being distinctly/strictly a D&D-alike (for these purposes, Palladium and Tunnels&Trolls are D&D-alikes), which also has some fingerprints of Cook, who has a lot of fingerprints all over 3.5. I can taste similar flavor combinations, but I don't feel they play out the same way.
I guess when I sit down to play 3.5, I look over my character and decide if they have the "correct" math or not. If they don't then I have to tweak the crunch and none of the numbers mean anything to me.

"I am a [Backstory] [Class] that [thing I focused my character to be good at]" is very much how I play 3.5 D&D and everything else is just meaningless math to make the sentence work.
There are still skills that I am either good at or "have no functional ability with because the math is working against me [3.5]".

It also doesn't help that Monte's writing style in Numenera just reminds me of the word salad 3.5 text blocks that go on and on and on.

I will give Numenera mad props because it puts "Dumb Guy who Swings a Sword" next to "Brilliant Wizard who Moves Mountains" and former can at least do his thing without tons of system mastery.

Willie the Duck
2019-01-25, 03:48 PM
It also doesn't help that Monte's writing style in Numenera just reminds me of the word salad 3.5 text blocks that go on and on and on.

Well, let's be clear, it is definitely the same author. That much is clear. But again, very broad net (or brush actually, that would be a better analogy. I should have started with that).


I guess when I sit down to play 3.5, I look over my character and decide if they have the "correct" math or not. If they don't then I have to tweak the crunch and none of the numbers mean anything to me.

"I am a [Backstory] [Class] that [thing I focused my character to be good at]" is very much how I play 3.5 D&D and everything else is just meaningless math to make the sentence work.
There are still skills that I am either good at or "have no functional ability with because the math is working against me [3.5]".

That's a very good explanation of why they feel the same to you. Thanks for clearing it up. I can see how both games have a bunch of that. It's just that...so does Shadowrun/GURPS/all the others I mentioned where building a character is a big part of the game. A few of them make a slightly more valiant effort to address the 'either major character focus, or no functional ability' issue, but it's present in all of them.


I will give Numenera mad props because it puts "Dumb Guy who Swings a Sword" next to "Brilliant Wizard who Moves Mountains" and former can at least do his thing without tons of system mastery.

Cook (and everyone else working on that project) screwed that up with 3e. No argument. It's one of the first things anyone hears about concerning 3e and what Cook will forever be known for to a lot of people. Doesn't mean he's going to do it with all his projects (although a his love of magic undoubtedly contributed to it happening and going unnoticed in 3e, and is certainly apparent in Numenera). So yes, mad props.

Xuc Xac
2019-01-25, 04:17 PM
Numenara feels like D&D to me because of the way they marketed it when it came out: "This isn't a d20 game where you play a fighter, wizard, or rogue! It's totally different! You play a glaive (warrior), nano (wizard), or jack (Rogue) instead. You'll still be rolling a d20 though." It just felt like Monte Cook was in so deep that he couldn't conceive of games that were different from D&D. It reminded me of all those Fantasy Heartbreakers where the authors described their "innovations" like not having alignments or being able to play a fighter/mage without being an elf.

Rhedyn
2019-01-25, 05:55 PM
Well, let's be clear, it is definitely the same author. That much is clear. But again, very broad net (or brush actually, that would be a better analogy. I should have started with that).



That's a very good explanation of why they feel the same to you. Thanks for clearing it up. I can see how both games have a bunch of that. It's just that...so does Shadowrun/GURPS/all the others I mentioned where building a character is a big part of the game. A few of them make a slightly more valiant effort to address the 'either major character focus, or no functional ability' issue, but it's present in all of them.



Cook (and everyone else working on that project) screwed that up with 3e. No argument. It's one of the first things anyone hears about concerning 3e and what Cook will forever be known for to a lot of people. Doesn't mean he's going to do it with all his projects (although a his love of magic undoubtedly contributed to it happening and going unnoticed in 3e, and is certainly apparent in Numenera). So yes, mad props.I think the big difference for me is that Numenera is class based and GURPS isn't (and I'm pretty sure Shadowrun can be classless).

Plus the other elements and the overwhelming sense Numenera was Monte's way to get people "to play 3.5 right". Because man 3.5 combats could be a slog and you were less excited about doing things in combat than you were excited about what you could do in combat.

gkathellar
2019-01-25, 05:58 PM
you were less excited about doing things in combat than you were excited about what you could do in combat.

I just want to say, I think that's a fascinating way of putting it. I'm going to have to give that some thought.