The Best Defense | Designing The Game
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- How to Attack? | How do Defend?
The videos mentioned
The Dice | • The Dice | Designing T...
Flow & The Null Result | • Flow & The Null Result...
Attack! | • Attack! | Designing Th...
The Tactician & The Shadow | • The Tactician & The Sh...
Pre-Order the MCDM RPG | mcdm.gg/RPG
💝 Support us on the MCDM Patreon | mcdm.gg/patreon
📚 Enhance your game with MCDM products from our Shop!
shop.mcdmproductions.com/
🐦 Follow us on Twitter!
MCDM - / hellomcdm
James - / jamesintrocaso
Matt - / mattcolville
💬 Join the conversation on the MCDM Discord!
mcdm.gg/discord
Background music for livestreams is provided by State Azure.
stateazure.bandcamp.com/ - Ігри
This was possibly the biggest hit during the playtest in my mind. Players loved the feeling when they avoided the damage because it was something *they did* as opposed to, oops the monster missed. It also, along with the initiative system, kept them really engaged the whole combat unlike 'oh it's my turn, I cast fireball.'
My assumption would be that the reverse would also be true... players would feel bad when they roll poorly and take a lot of damage because it feels like they failed, rather than the monsters doing something cool
@@theeyehead3437I’ve been a player in 2 tests and have been the director for 3 tests-all with different players. Nobody seemed to feel bad about low rolls. Or at least, I could say that low rolls here feel way better than in 5E because you still make some headway, rather than entirely biffing your hit and or having to miss a turn because you failed to hit.
@@theeyehead3437 I've only run one test so that's definitely possible, but most of the reactions halved the damage outright, and then had riders that allowed them to reduce damage further that used dice. So the fact that they got half off the bat reduced the sting of a low roll I think.
@@MarcAlanSchelske How to you make progress when you roll badly on a defense roll? I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just really curious about the game
@@theeyehead3437 Have not been in any tests, but it seems like "I slowed down the enemy progress, at least a little" is a better feeling than "I was helpless to do anything"
I would love to see a quick combat video in action, just to see the exact flow and how fast it actually works out. I'm very excited for this RPG!
This is a great idea. I would love to watch some pre made encounter just to have a fealling of how it really works
James ran a combat encounter for The Character Sheet on UA-cam! Check it out!
The awesome guy who DM'd the test packet for me is editing an actual play at the moment for this exact purpose. The combat was an absolute blast. Easily the most fun I've had in a TRPG on a pure mechanics basis. I've had better moments in games, but never have I had better gameplay. And this was just one three hour test packet.
It does sound very slow
It didn't seem slow when playing it. We blew through three combat encounters and several non combat encounters in about three hours. @@Arkandos42
Having a legendary enemy be capable of the same actions the heroes have seems like it would be a cool way to show how much cooler they are if normal enemies can’t take those same actions. It’s like legendary actions in dnd but doesn’t make you feel innately inferior to them.
"Ganon Flurry Rush" vibes. In the best way.
While non-Patrons don’t get to see how the sausage gets made, I for one appreciate that the DtG series allows the rest of us to at least taste-test it. Thanks James, Matt, and the rest of MCDM.
Separating the resistance roll from the damage roll seems like a no-brainer, it's what D&D does! Very cool to hear how all the iteration panned out.
the issue at 4:10 sounds quite realistic in a sense… but as you said, it’s not the fantasy! That’s how some games have us play, particularly like Assassins Creed and many soulslike. Maybe save that system for some kind of sword dueling game, but it doesn’t encourage the heroic mindset for this game.
Love this game design philosophy. It’s why I’m so excited for this game.
Playtest was fun 😎 triggered actions feel like a more impactful group maneuver from Arcadia
This damage system is continuing to evolve even now! We love that we got to automatically deal damage in combination with a resistance roll. The next step is adding even more variability to damage, so it's not always just the 2d6 average number of damage. Miles to go, but it's shaping up!
That's my single biggest issue I have with the system so far is the roll 2d6. While it makes things simpler I like having bigger or more dice to roll, and if I don't choose them it's my fault for choosing something that doesn't have that.
@@kidthegeek I also have issues with everything being a 2d6 roll. Since there's no to-hit roll, there's no reason everyone's damage roll needs to be the same. It also leads to the numbers being higher than they need to be. IMO, single damage die + some modifier would be much more simple and accomplish the same overall goal they are going for.
I will say in defense of the 2d6 that it’s easier for new players to join. Having d6’s in your house is pretty common, and it makes the game feel more inviting for some
@@MichaelG485 2d6 is preferable to 1d6 or 1d8 or any single die because it has a curved distribution. They have gone over this in the dice video but essentially putting the possible results on a curve where, for example, a 7 is much more likely than a 12 or a 1, makes high/low damage feel more impactful and also makes encounters easier to balance
@@ADDIPOP 2d6 being preferable is subjective. I don't mind having a bit more randomness in TTRPGs. I don't really care too much about balance either. I like games where the party needs to make a decision to retreat from time to time because the fight is not going their way. Combat is chaotic and making it more predictable takes that aspect away.
I totally understand that this game is probably not going to be for me, and can see why people would like the system the way it's set up.
I think you guys are making a lot of good decisions with this game. I love the idea of triggered actions.
Same satisfaction that a Blue player has in Magic the Gathering.
“IN RESPONSE… I TAP TWO ISLANDS AND CAST ‘NO WAY, JOSÉ’!’”
Triggered actions are basically just reactions from D&D under a different name. They might have more readily available per class but it's the same idea.
@@Jhakaro I guess. 5e barely ever uses reactions though. This game makes them more intrinsic to the combat.
Man, this is all making me feel better about my amateur design, as I went through almost all the discarded steps when trying to make my own system.
Same here, quite reassuring that professionnal game designers with a large playtesting community make the same conclusions and meet the same issues than yourself on your isolated desk
I have played Mork Borg and the Black Sword Hack, and one of the issues I had with both games is that, as the gamemaster, I did not roll any dice and felt that I was not really controlling anything. I totally relate with James' discussion here. This aspect of the game is looking great.
Okay I have to ask: why do you feel that not rolling dice i.e. not adding a **random** element gives you **less** control?
@@tuomasronnberg5244 well often the random element of RPGs like rolling dice is there to temper your imagination of an action that has an effect on the world by having the potential to limit its efficacy. Sometimes, the inference and received experience there is that dice are only rolled when you take an action that could make a real difference. Perhaps if you are limited to actions that are tempered only by the actions of the players or your own sense of appropriate limitations, rather than just the winds of fate, you start feeling a bit less like someone participating in the story and just a technical worker.
As a GM, I love to roll dice, even if it nullifies what I was setting up. Dice feel like my tools for action in the world.
@@VeronicaWarlock Sure, but what I'm getting at is that it doesn't make a difference whether it's the players or the GM who rolls the dice. I run PbtA games and I don't feel any less in control when interpreting the results of dice rolls that the players make. I am still fully participating in the story even if it wasn't my hand that last touched those dice on the table.
@tuomasronnberg5244 I think it depends on the level of abstraction in the combat. In a game like Blades in the Dark, the combat is so abstracted as to be nonexistent, but the GM has input via DC/TN setting and clocks, so not rolling dice is fine.
In a D&D or MCDM RPG style game, the gm not rolling dice feels a lot more like either ruling by fiat or giving up control.
It's an interesting approach which we maybe should see more of.
It's pros:
1. It hammers in the "game master is a narrator, not an opposing player" thought.
2. It alleviates some of the mental workload from the gamemaster.
3. It makes players do all the rolling which means there is more of a feeling of being the one who's actions decide what happens to their character. No getting hit cause enemy rolled high and such - only getting hit cause you rolled low and such.
It also got it's cons:
1. As opposite edge of it hammering in the "game master is a neutral narrator" mindset, stuff like boss battles, while feeling cool for the players, don't really feel different on game master's side compared to minion encounters.
2. As opposite edge of giving players more feeling of control, it can reduce said feeling from the game master. Plus, can't really fudge dice in such a case.
3. It's harder to implement mechanically. Especially if you do it pure, as in "game master never touches dice". In this case, if an opponent rolls skills and such, it's players doing luck rolls for that... or some static skill performance.
Can, of course, do only opposed stuff, such as a attack rolls, player-only, while using skills as usual. A hybrid approach kinda ig.
All in all, it's best suited for game masters who are fully for the "neutral narrator" role ig.
Most such games are narrative-focused too: pbta and fitd. This also gives game master more control
Could be fun seeing something more rules medium and more combat and such focused with such stuff ig
Edit: a creature's statblock basically becomes a block of Target Numbers ig
Love the amount of refinement on display and the commitment to fun, heroic and cinematic gameplay, and the willingness to start over with dead ends.
I love the development process and I really want to join the Patreon to see the sausage factory.
“Countering became the best way to deal damage.” Aka how I play Assassin’s Creed.
Thanks James! I’ll be honest. I love the fact that you’re sharing the thought process behind the decision making during the design process. Seeing this makes me more excited for the finished product.
I've played a lot of Kult: Divinity Lost where all of the rolls are made by the players. And as a story driven GM who encourages engagement from my players, I really like that. As a GM, it meant less bookkeeping and I could focus more on the story being told.
Guys! Just got my copy of „Where Evil Lives“ delivered to Germany. Just wow! …if this is the baseline for how you approach DM materials in MCDM RPG, can’t tell you how cool this will be. Thanks a lot for your work! ❤❤❤
Also great approach to the defense system James! Keep up the MCDM way! ❤❤❤
This is interesting. I've got at least a couple "only players roll" RPGs on my playlist. I forgot there had ever been an iteration of MCDM RPG like that.
When you're jonesing so hard you think you might smoke some bits of concrete you found and then your dealer walks around the corner...
I needed this video.
I love these videos so much. Thanks for taking the time to do them!
Nice, really fun to follow the train of thought through this. Thank you
I really appreciate the level of iteration you all are putting into this. Every time you read off a version you were trying, in my head I'd think "Okay this solves this negative feeling, but it risk creating this other negative feeling. I wonder if they ran into that" and then you'd continue on to confirm my suspicion or bring up one I hadn't thought of. On paper, I really enjoy what you've come up with for the current iteration of attacks.
I wonder if you'll be doing more iteration like this on other mechanics you've come up with so far. For instance, the "Kit" system you've described does a lot of good stuff, but I think there's potential downsides that I think will need to be addressed to make the best version of the game.
I appreciate the window into the creative process!
Was bummed I wasn’t able to back this at the time, but you definitely have my pre order!
I can’t wait to playtest this game!
Love the iterations and explanations!
Never been happier to back a project
I’ve played 1.5 playtests, and can confirm. I had more fun DUE TO combat than I ever have in 5E. I’ve had more epic story moments in 5E because I’ve played hundreds of times more, but those were due to story, not the mechanics. Can’t wait to add a layer of epic storytelling to this system!
Yeah. I felt genuinely sad that combat ended because I was enjoying it so much. Think about how amazing this'll be when its got the added weight of a campaign we're invested in behind it.
This is such a good way of putting it! I've been running mostly nothing but 5e for the last 6 years but I've never felt a kinship to the system- it was just the closest to the monster fighting tactical fantasy game I wanted to run. I never noticed that combat, on the regular, kinda sucked. My players were indifferent at best, save for some hype moments that came from a potent description or a big crit. One of my players (post MCDM playtest) even admitted that her *least* favorite part of DnD has always been combat. Meanwhile, the combat we played in the MCDM playtest was the most exciting we've ever played. Players even felt closer to their characters and were throwing in quips and barks inspired by their tactics! Looking forward to the continued development of this system.
Yes!
Every time I watch one of these videos I feel my DM brain expanding lol
Keep up the good work!
Very cool video, thank you! Looking forward to this game!
Here:
Start with the original rules.
1. 2d6+char attribute = damage
2. Subtract defenders static "defense"
3. Defender takes damage - defense "net damage"
And here's the change
4. If the attack has an effect, that effect will have a TN. If the "net damage" meets or beats the TN, the attack successfully inflicts the bonus effect.
Narratively this says "the attack was so impactful or so poorly defended, that there is a bonus effect"
"That mighty blow connected really well and did a lot of damage. It connected so well, it knocked the enemy back a few squares."
100% this. Had the same idea myself while mid-video and came to the comments to see if anyone else had also thought of it. No need for a "resistance roll" when you can just build that resistance into the target's static defense.
Then the monsters tier or difficulty class could be the TN so a tier 6 epic monster is quite hard to stun but you could slap goblins around like hockey pucks
@@SkittleBombs oh you're right. This is important too!
Love it. Thanks for the video. I love the design updates
Love seeing how the sausage is made! I’m excited to see what happens making the damage range more extreme
Killed it with the Patreon playtest, killing it with the videos!
Amazing. Thanks for sharing guys.
Man, 30 seconds into this and I'm hooked.
As a game designer myself it's really nice to have a peek at your process for designing the game. This series as a whole has been awesome!
I'm wondering where the decision to use different terms came from, comparing to D&D. I'm well aware we can still say "saving throw" and "DC" at our own table and call our Director "DM", but it kinda feels like when you are playing a souls-like and now Estus is called "drinku healu" and bonfire is "saving blaze"... You know what I mean?
As far as I know, those terms are not licensed and cannot be licensed by WotC, so I'm wondering if this decision is to just further distance this system from D&D and avoid comparison or if you guys just think it sounds cooler.
Anyway, nice work so far, looking forward to play!
Matt has talked about the terminology in some of his livestreams. Basically, it's a combination of sounding cooler and being more intuitive/descriptive names that are easy for newcomers to understand
TN has been around for ages and used by a lot more games than DC has been (since it originated with D&D 3rd edition). "Saving throw" has always been odd to me - why is it a throw instead of a roll? Why aren't there attack throws, then? But I digress.
Also, I have been playing for several decades so my perspective is naturally going to be different from yours, even if you've played as long. Different, but not necessarily more correct - YMMV, as always.
SO EXCITED!
Very excited for this game.
I use the Director-Doesn't-Roll style for GMing for my kids. They roll two dice against "target numbers" to attack, dodge, defend, etc, and have to add the numbers together themselves (yay math!). Works really well in that sphere, and I don't feel like I'm playing a different game; just a very different role.
Great stuff.
Thank you for these designing the game videos.
Although this isn't the system for me for multiple reasons, it is interesting to get some insight into your iterative design process.
I am reminded of the 5th Age Epic rules with the card deck. Director never held the card, everything was player driven, they attacked, they avoided being attacked.
As Director, I LOVED this, I could focus on everything else, and players had to constantly be engaged.
This makes me vwry happy. ❤
Cool stuff!
Fascinating how you worked through it. I've been on Contested rolls like yours at the 7m mark for my gritty dark ages ttrpg design, and happy to stay there! Appreciate it's not a good fit for your game though.
Sounds great!
Nice!
They were “this” close to taking another step into the PBTA game system. Dang. Maybe in their next game
I like where you ended up! Very cool
Sounds like you should go play PBtA! Lotta people seem to like it!
Thankfully not all the way. Two different system design goals.
I love asymmetric game mechanics. I bet giving directors something like “arrogance” (for when the heroes are struggling or have failed some fight or objective, or had to retreat early) and “fear” (for when the heroes are doing especially well and advancing very quickly) could change the shape, impact, and behavior mechanically of enemies, and the players would totally buy it.
I am loving dealing damage consistently currently, feels good. But excited to see where goes if it changes.
If I wanted to avoid powerful status conditions I would simply avoid being hit. 😊
(Slick premise, looking forward to seeing how it stands up to scrutiny!)
I hope the counter play style is worked into a kit for a big tower shield knight or like fencing kit for shadows
The updates seem pretty legit! I’m excited for the full release of mcdm table top game! That said, I miss the peace out at the end of the video.
Honestly this sounds great to run, it takes a lot of energy to constantly be rolling stuff if you’re running a lot of lil guys at once and it’s like “oh cool now I have to roll dex saving throws for all these dorks”
I'd love to see you guys play dune again with all of the expansions that have been coming out!
I’m so excited about this game! This is going to be the new standard to which all other TTRPGs are compared.
The concept with the director ot rolling sounds like rhe perfect system to me. Would i miss rolling? Probably, but the mechanics just sound absolutely wonderful to me.
I really do like the to-hit - defenses = Dmg!... maybe add a static damage and the die result (like your chat concept) tells you if you do "half that damage' , 'the base damage', or 'double damage'? [please read that in the abstract as Im trying to convert the idea into a "design-pattern"] (an aside; Also consider putting 'critical' outcomes on "doubles"). This concept is essentially the same as your chart idea but "decouples" the chart in a useful way. Moreover I think having a "Degree of success" interpretation of the dice roll as a "universal concept" serves the game design in many ways including in social role playing scenes etc. This way you dont always have to recopy the chart everywhere. Like through all the spells etc and reduces the "overhead". Im thinking of yes, PbTA but also my old favorite Talislanta, for this universal table idea which, like you say, becomes really "no table" as the players and Director intuit the brake-points and no longer need to rely on the table during play. I think looking to Japan and the Standard Rule System (SRS) a 2d6 rules engine (Sword world, Goblin Slayer, Ryuutama etc) would be informative; they use a charts version of "damage" in very simple ways.
Another approach with the 2d6 is to read the two d6's as separately as "High" and "Low" results which are how you read and determine, by selecting the higher or lower (assigned by the rules eg use the Low dice for X or use the High dice for Y) of the two dice giving you the "effect" "effort". If you were open to accepting a 3d6 range over the 2d6 you can use the separate d6 results in the form of "Low", "Mid", and "High" and your selection of which die (as determined by the rules) is based on the special things the classes can do and gives your "effect" "effort.
I hope this is helpful. PS also pick up a copy of the "Talisman RPG" from Ulisies Speil (yes its in English) some really hidden but amazing design concepts in that game too. Worth a review for any designer imo.
"If an attack simply pushes a target back 2 squares, that can probably happen automatically"
Might wanna rethink that specific example, I've seen many an enemy (and some players) executed by naught more than a short-distance push ⬇🕳
But yeah, everything else about the current design sounds pretty good!
It can also lead to kiting which is kind of degenerate
first thing I thought of as well. maybe if they do get pushed over an edge they'll get a "catch themselves" defense against the terrain instead of against the attack
example getting pushed 1 square into open space is TN 5 agility to save. Pushed 2 squares into open space is TN 10 agility, and so on. 3 squares, TN 15 getting impossible. 4 squares TN 20 super high level agility to even have a chance.
Thank you for being confident to share the failures. I think the biggest lesson that any game designer can take away from these videos is: Get your ideas to the table ASAP and try them out. Fail faster and live your way to the answers to paraphrase Rainer Maria Rilke.
I really like what I'm seeing and it seems more simple with just 2d6 versus the d20, but I'd like to see how some powerhouse monsters work - Dragon, Balrog, Lich, etc. to ensure these apex monsters are not nerfed.
It's likely that the damage is no longer 2d6 + mods for everything. This video is already outdated and covers how damage worked in the patreon test.
Gotta say that I love design for monsters/ NPCs and players. The goal of designing a monster for the GM and the goal of designing a player character are so vastly different! You can’t hit two vastly different targets with the same design! I’m also personally a fan of players-roll-everything, mostly for the spotlight effect it has on the feel of the game.
I backed this game and I want it to be good, but so far I'm still pretty unconvinced. That's ok though, after 30+ years in the hobby I totally understand not every game hits everyone the same, and I'm willing to try any game to find out if it's for me. Hoping for the best!
So that said, I absolutely appreciate the consideration put into the mechanics here and in each other video. Balance and implementation are much more important to a game's longevity than uniqueness.
Bold of you to assume at the start of the video that I'm capable of retaining any information from previous videos.
I hope they consider allowing select, elite monsters to have triggered actions to mitigate damage as well. I understand that it feels heroic to never have your own attacks mitigated while being able to avoid damage from your opponent...but that's also the sensation you get when hitting a punching bag. Not all monsters need to have this, and I think it would be suitably dramatic and cinematic to have tougher monsters get a few good licks in on the players as well. I am not playtesting, so maybe this desire is sated via other methods (special monsters or abilities) but taken at the face value of this video I would hope it evolved that direction if it currently isn't.
I was about to suggest some way to let the player decide if they want to fight the effect or not with a limited resource of some kind. So that they had a choice of trying to resist the knockback with the one "token" they have or keep it to perhaps resist some other effect down the line. Which is basically what you ended up doing in the end. :)
I like this combat mechanic. But I would love to see certain monsters and bosses be given the same/similar resistances that heroes get.
In Fellowship of the Ring all of the Uruk-hai in the attack would be standard enemies. BUT Lurtz (the guy with the bow) was special. He was portrayed as more of a threat and did more than a standard monster would. The drama of the scene would have been lost if it was random orc archer number 12 that shot Boromir AND it wouldn’t have been as dramatic when Aragorn arrived and attempted to rescue him.
I imagine boss mechanics are already being worked on but I would love to see how they interact with the standard attack/defense mechanics.
I realized pretty early on as a dm that you could take armor class, subtract ten, and use the remainder as a bonus to a defense roll with a target number of a monsters attack bonus plus ten. Then, take average damage for attacks and it greatly sped up running the game.
Isn't... that functionally very similar to the "not fun" example you gave at the start? You always take damage, except for the one time a round you can use an ability against it, and a small effect might just happen. Obviously the bigger effects are mitigated by getting a roll, but how would this work to simulate a tactical and cinematic moment like Aragorn and Gimli on the helms deep causeway? Obi-wan putting up a perfect defense against... Well anyone?
Holding a position against numerous foes is a big part of cinematic combat, but this design seems like you're gonna be sliced to pieces?
I'm a bit surprised you didn't go for something like hit a number on a die to make an effect happen. like if one of your dice in your attack roll is a 6, the effect happens. it would give flexibility in how often an effect triggers, and you could even do some lowball stuff, like a poison effect that only activates on a lowball number.
My first immediate thought was the same. A roll of 7 vs. 5 might only give 2 damage, but a roll of 7 vs. 3 adds up to a solid 4 damage plus the target is frightened. As a slightly more complex bonus, if the swing from 2 to 4+riders is too much, one could even add in trades. Say if you hit with some ability called "Mindfear" for more than 3 damage, you can choose to spend 2 of those damage to trigger the Frightened effect. That way you can choose between big damage or applying conditions depending on your need.
Taking yet another step further, you could play around with maybe some abilities trigger riders easily but it costs all your damage, while other abilities only trigger at high damage but maybe don't cost a thing to gain that effect. Of course, there's always the option of non-damaging abilities but I don't know how those are modelled yet.
If I understand you correctly, I feel like monsters need modifiers to their TN rolls. Bosses should have bonuses, and some creatures should have weaknesses to specific Characteristics. A scarecrow monster should be easier to push around than a rock golem and therefore they should have modifiers to the TN rolls. Just a thought
TN as Target # could instead be Trigger # - named for the Triggering of a cool thing.
Wohooo!
I'm so glad you didn't use the asymmetrical version. At our table we feel disconnected with this kind of game design.
Very much like World Engine and Cypher where it comes to players only roll.
wooh!
I feel like the chalkboard outlines might be hurting more than helping. In the final method, "Step 2: Apply Effects" is handwaving away a lot of complexity and making the process look simpler than it is. Not that it's necessarily complex.
Of course, now that there's the Power Roll tables, this whole video may be a bit of a moot point.
Personnaly I use the second version of opposed roles you talked about, Opposed roles keep the players engaged and feel like their skills matter. I wished you add developped a bit more on why you didnt keep it rather than Matt saying "Its the same than the first but with an additional roll" but my system doesnt really work the same than yours so I didnt have the same issues that you had with your first version.
Sounds awesome! But what about PvP?
If a big focus on the game's design is feeling cinematic, would it make sense to incorporate "failing forwards" into the different attacks/abilities/etc? That even on a miss or save, something always happens to advance the story?
I like this solution but isnt it working just cuz its basically how dnd does it? Attacks do damage and then theres a saving throw for additional effects?
This sounds really promising, I am curious how it will work as player's level up though. Will they be stuck on 2d6 + stat damage forever? How about their TN's, will they always be less than 12? I'm keen to see where this goes. Keep up the great work though!
probably they'll get stronger abilities with higher TN's
The effect trigger number is a nice method to solve the initial problem.
2d6 is a 6 average.
So rolling 2d6 and gettint a 9 is essential a minor crit.
[9+] effect
[10+] effect
Etc
7 is average, there's no zero on the dice, and there's 2 dice, minimum is 2, average is 3.5+3.5=7
How does monster armor / damage resistance work?
You could also incorporate the Resistance Roll into the damage roll. Monsters would have a TN to have conditions applied to them.
1) Damage is rolled (result: 10)
2) Effects are applied
3) Conditions check: "Does the monster resist poisoning?" - director checks: "Monster has TN 9 - so it is poisoned."
This should shake out to the same probabilities, but it
A) reduces the amount of dice rolled
B) means, higher damaging abilities have a better chance of applying conditions
C) high damage rolls are additionally rewarded with conditon effects.
Might be that your current version with 2 rolls allows for more fine tuning (good). Thinking about it, it's basically the same as adding a guaranteed bit of damage to a D20 save-or-suck spell (simple but elegant).
Apart from the lack of attack rolls, I don't understand how the system differs from D$D.. you roll damage, than things happen and you have a resistance roll which is no different from a Saving Throw in D$D...
It even has Difficulty Class to roll against..
I mean.... it kinda sounds like you guys want a saving throw mechanic in there. Although class specific reaction do sound cool.
That's what the resistance roll mechanic he mentioned is
I've been working on developing my own system that's only purpose is to allow *ME* to run an awesome game, so it doesn't have to be communicable to anyone else. As such, I have LOADS of freedom to make things that feel good TO ME as a GM, but wouldn't necessarily be fun for someone else in the same role. I do player-only rolling during combat, and I love it. I definitely get how it wouldn't appeal to a wider audience, but I don't have to worry about that, so I don't.
Hurray for homebrew nonsense!
Would only important enemies have triggered actions? If the DM is running a bunch of monsters with different triggered actions would that be kind of hard to manage?
He said only players have triggered actions, for simplicity and the power fantasy. Though I imagine a good way to make a big enemy seem powerful is to give them a triggered action too.
The main issue that first comes to mind for the system settled on at the end of the video is just unpracticed player/director behaviour. Especoally from games like dnd that require to hit rolls before a detrimental effect gets a saving throw, I could see players or directors rolling their damage dice then announcing what they did and what the resistance roll is, making the game slower.
Do we know if there is a way for a hero to roll a “critical hit” in this version?
Crits are rolling a 5+6 or 6+6 on the die, and results in you getting an extra action
Im curius about how this would work in pvp.
Im not thinking in players being toxic,no.
Im thinking in thinks like tournaments and the like.
I think the quick and dirty fix to the original Damage-Defense roll, leaving aside the counter issue, is to require a damage threshold for effects to apply. This allows for powerful effects to require a higher roll than weaker ones to kick in. It also opens up room for scaling the same effect at different thresholds or multiple outcomes for the same effect.
To combat player's lack of agency when being attacked, they could be given an option to reduce a fixed amount of incoming damage in exchange for a penalty on their next turn. This could be a menu of options with higher reductions for greater penalties. From a reduction to their next roll, a move speed penalty, or even skipping their next turn altogether. Further testing may be required to see if reducing damage below zero this way would necessitate giving up the counter abilities.
All these solutions can be symmetrical.
Love that there is a new system to play but I feel like it's complicated. I guess time will tell.
What? Maybe if you're watching all these videos and thinking you need to know the rules of all the previous versions of the system that have been scrapped (why would you ever think that?) - this system is looking positively streamlined! It's literally just "roll 2d6 whenever something happens with your character"
@@CrashSable Glad you like it! I'll follow along and wait till the end product to try it out.
in pbta games, GMs generally dont roll and ive never seen that cause an issue
Pbta games aren’t tactical, heroic games made for an audience used to 5E.
The director/gm not rolling is literally the whole numenera system and it's great
Man game design is tricky huh 😅
Honest question: with the most recent system, how does player versus player combat work then?
Nothing released about that. I bet it's unlikely PVP gets any attention because the game assumes you are heroes on a team. The only PVP would be when a PC is enchanted or something and the rules would just be normal rolls.
It would work exactly the same, just with both getting triggered actions. Same as fighting a boss, I expect
I'm liking what I'm seeing! It really feels like we're getting to the stable state that you guys want the game to behave like. I know you aren't looking at names for things right now, but the placeholder TN seems clunky to say. May I humbly suggest Threshold as the number to reach or beat?
Game Masters have to be considered as players too. They don't always have to have the exact same mechanics to run as the players but if they're not rolling at all or engaging with the ONLY actual tangible way to interact with the game, then they're not even playing at all. It's good the "no director roll" part was changed. That's just not fun at all for anyone running the game. I dislike games that act like the GM and the players are entirely separate and the GM is not even considered a player who plays the game but rather only someone that facilitates a game for others to play in.
Will there be d4s, d8s, d10s, d12s, or d20s in the game?
Currently from what I've seen: yes (boon/bane), yes (impact), no, no, no
D4, d6 and d8 for sure.