Hey Veeky Forums

Because between what you like and nothing at all there is a bigger spectrum that you can even imagine.

The alternative to a huge simulationist machine where a fast combat takes an hour is not nothing at all.

Take a look at narrative RPGs.

But you said a game isn't about the rules.
So why have rules at all?

I like it.
Nice open ended setting that let's you expand it easily.
Really easy to gm and make things on the fly.
Interesting character creation with lots of variation for a "class based" system.
Well organized book with tips for general GMing and specific tips for its setting.
Really easy to teach to new players even ones that never played an rpg before.

Solid 8/10, would play again.

Eating isn't about cooking. So why have cooking at all?

Because life is complex, reaching your main objective requires reaching secondary targets, which require tertiary and so on.

You want fun? You use a game. But then players need to know what the game is about, and this ends in a contract between the players.

The thing here is, what is more important, having fun of the contract between the players? Because you will reach a point where you will have to choose between them.

The setting concept is neat, but it is better just to make your own shit up than use any premade content.

The system is mediocre. It is a weird mid-point between rules-light games and more complex games, chances are you would rather have one or the other.

The system is also rather poorly balanced, and poorly constructed. The xp system does not work as intended, there is no reason to not play a jack, there are trap options out the ass, and armor is broken.

Basically, you will probably have more fun by taking the basic concept of the setting and running it in fate core or something.

There's the act of cooking, and then there are cookbooks, and the ultimate goal of both cooking and cookbooks is to eat. If you are following a cookbook's recipes, and most of them are good, and you're good at cooking, then the food you eat will be good. If you have to keep changing the recipes because the food keeps coming out bad, then maybe you should use a different cookbook.

Not if you draw up a good contract instead of half-assed mess full of obvious holes.

The game is alright, but as it's all about exploration and mysteries, don't expect characters to be equal in combat, I'd encourage doing the creation together so you're sure no one gets regrets.
For the setting, it's interesting (basically a med-fan with lots of technology that people treat as magic), but the base book is quite bare, so you have quite some work as a GM.
Overall I'd rate it 7/10 with the other books on settings and character options, a bit less without them.

I've heard mildly different. Apparently you don't have to do a lot of prep as GM. Do you mean bare as in it's lacking in premade statblocks or stuff?

Npcs are literally a number and whatever quirks you want to add. I see it as a good thing but I understand why some people don't like it.

Numenera has a cool concept on paper, but the RPG itself is shit, the rules are bad and the setting is a hack writers magical realm.

If you want a Sci-Fantasy post apocalyptic RPG, you can do better then Numenera with almost anything. RIFTs is better, Gamma World is better, running Apocalypse World with more magic is better. Degenesis despite the memes is better.

Seriously, I fell for the trap and now fully understand the hate that Cook gets.

Take the core idea, of earth but a million billion years in the future where multiple civilizations have risen and fallen, and port it to a different system. Numenera does nothing interesting with the premise, and the rules aren't all that good either.

>as for example D&Ds magic system is taken from the Jack Vance's Dying Earth,
No. D&D's magic system is taken from Dave Arneson's Blackmoor, where spells are grenades cooked up in a lab that are cast (thrown) to activate.
You can have as many spells as you can afford to make, there's a chance of spell failure, and the prominent wizard of the setting was named Gaylord.

GM doesn't roll dice. all rolls are player facing. the number associated with the NPC (x3) is the difficulty for all checks. this includes both attacking and dodging.

actually, the magic is much more reminiscient of how cudgle describes having a spell stored in his mind. same with what rialto describes. you trap the spell in your mind and then release it when you cast, which means you can flub the casting.

So it's kinda like symbaroum in that way. I don't know, i have cases for both the GM rolling and now. Like, you can't crit and don't have to fudge stuff, if you were such a GM. But also, I get some engagement from rolling. The level x 3 difficulty could make things easier. Is it bad or good? I haven't played with something like it before.

Depends on the group.
It's more nuanced than what the other user posted but for us (meaning my group) works really great.

I was reading through the pdf, and it just seemed
to be formatted weird. Maybe I haven't given it enough effort.

>food analogy

Cool concept, but the execution isn't great. I think you could take the idea and have a really good campaign, but you'd have to come up with a lot of your own shit. I've run a couple adventures now with my group and we may or may not be sticking with it (these people can't decide on anything and as the GM I wanted a break from Shadowrun)

>GM doesn't roll dice. all rolls are player facing.
Since I saw that I stole this for my homebrew. >the number associated with the NPC (x3) is the difficulty for all checks. this includes both attacking and dodging.
Too "narratively" for my tastes, with too little granularity. The concept works, but it isn't for anyone.

I've played Torment. There were some ideas I liked in its system even if it's not balanced at all. Namely the effort mechanic.
Is Torment's system faithful to the book or is it customized?

Monte, if you must shill your own work, try and vary the OP posts a little?