Survey designer and analyst here. I’d urge caution on interpreting 4/5 on a satisfaction scale as positive if you are seeing it consistently. Survey takers view satisfaction scales through the lens of expectations, and are also frequently subject to affirmative bias. It’s pretty rare to get a histogram that puts 3/5 in the true middle of the data. The way we try to design survey questions around this issue is to have statements that are meant to have low answers. This can be difficult with satisfaction scales, so try success scales and ask a question that is supposed to be answered “totally unsuccessful”. Then compare results on those choices and you can calibrate your interpretation so you understand that maybe your true middle is 3.6/5.
That seems like a very cool solution but wouldn’t everyone that reads the question simply flip their answer around? (For example they would answer 1/5 when they would have answered 5/5) if it worked in this way it would not really give you that much more insight into the middle of the data
@@G_Alamia that could be happening, but often the issue is that people get "stuck" at one end of the bubbles, so your objective is to get people to stop and read the questions and flip their answers around. But, also, it's the reason why satisfaction scales are tricky because it's hard to normalize. On something like agreement you can ask a question like, "I miss rolling a d20 and occasionally missing my turn entirely" and then you expect to get disagreement. Satisfaction is always dangerous because of how subjective it is. When we're designing studies for work, we tend to do Importance and success scales for each statement so you can say "people say X is important and they are doing poorly" or "People say they are doing very well, but think that criteria doesn't matter".
I'm no expert of course, but I'm concerned that they may be getting too much input from people inclined to favor whatever they do, partly because they are patrons, backers, etc, ending up with a lot more "yes men" than objective participants. I wonder if this isn't or shouldn't at some point be a consideration. Otherwise, it seems, they'd be making a game for a select group without input from the wider potential community.
@@MemphiStig I think they're taking a pretty active stance against the echo chamber. The surveys are a pulse, but their discord and patreon state pretty clearly that they're not interested in unsolicited ideas or feedback. I think the surveys are really feedback. I think the real issue my comment was addressing is not that they're only going to hear "yes" but that if you do hear that in a survey, you should distrust the survey. Time will tell, of course.
Love that Matt silently repeats “making my way” after James says it at 1:33. I also like the fact that you all address the issue of game mechanics feeling or seeming similar to those from other games as a functional element of design. I’ve seen this issue brought up a number of times recently, as “X is the same subsystem as Y from another game”. However, it’s the way in which those various subsystems, bespoke or not, are combined to create an overall experience of play and support certain types of stories that seems to matter most in a constructive vein.
I'm kind of hoping for a lightweight version of negotiations too. Maybe guards have just 1 patience, are motivated by duty and money, and have the pitfalls of conspiracy/deceit and getting caught. I feel like double page spread of really short and snappy example rules that fit archetypes could be a fun way of naturalising it into the system as a whole.
That sounds very much like the sort of scenario they have said "is just normal roleplay with a die roll" like it is in 5e. To quote them, they're not trying to make what you're already doing more complicated.
Loved the difference in reactions to Daels' puns from James and Matt. First one, Jams loves it, Matt just rolls his eyes. Second one, James just about groans, Matt says "Dael, youre fired!" 😂😂😂😂 And the almost slip of the name of the game! Accidentally, or is Matt playing a little fun game wih us? What a tease! 😂😂😂😂
I feel like the issue with variance could also be "softly" addressed through monster design; let's say bosses have features like, "If this creature takes 8 damage or less, it instead takes 4 damage"; now you _want_ those big hits, and scoring one becomes everyone's responsibility, like in PF2e. Monsters are very much in the designer's ballpark, and the way they are built can be used to nudge the math without compromising any of the player-facing stuff.
Does a more Powered by the Apocolypse skills system fit the 2d6 better? I always loved the idea of Success, "success but", and the failure mechanism of "making the players lives more interesting"
Every tidbit about this game makes me more excited for the final product- or I suppose, more excited for the backer playtest since that's what we'll get first! Also, aaaaagh the name! Gives us the name! We wants it!
God, it’s kinda crazy to think they know what the name of the game is right now. Knowing Matt, it’s gonna be so sick hahaha I can’t wait to play this game!!
I'm glad to hear that some thought is being given to onboarding and learning curve for the game. I hope also that we'll end up with some variety in the classes, with some being more complex (for those who like such things), and other being more simple (for dummies like me). I hate that in 5e, I can no longer fall back on my old position of "Eh, I'll just play a Martial", because even the Martials have so many feats and gimmicks to keep track of that they might as well be spellcasters. As for the name, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they announced, "Yeah, we're just calling it "The MCDM RPG', because that's what everyone's calling it anyway, and we've built up so much brand awareness at this point that calling it "Cudgel Spleen" or whatever would just confuse people."
One thing I remember being annoyed by on the likert scale questions was that I felt like there wasn't a good way to impart nuance in the in-between results, though the text sections did somewhat help. Some of the ones I gave a 3 were "I am conflicted", some were "this never came up and that's ok but I can't speak to its suitability", some were "this felt blandly functional", and some were "this came up but it left so little impression that I don't recall if I felt anything".
Great Q&A, Matt's mic+opposite shoulder alignment caused some major confusion with me at the start, like he had one very tall shoulder or was sitting angled with only his head aligned with the camera
I look forward to playing it! Take as long as you need to make it good :) Also appreciate the editing cutting out the (presumably) unnecessary bits of the stream.
It's _great_ to hear that they're thinking of increasing the volatility. To-hit rolls play an important part in maintaining the tension of an encounter - at any moment, you _could_ crit, or be critted, in a way which would turn the tides. This prevents you from ever being 100% confident in a battle's outcome. While I'm interested to see where the game goes without attack rolls, I do think that aspect of theirs needs to be reintroduced in another way.
I missed the kickstarter because I was too poor at the time, but I’m excited to become a patron here as soon as I can. Been blown away with the quality and feel and direction of everything so far, and looking forward running the full game for my friends one day:D
I’m always a sucker for a class that uses its own HP as a resource for spells, maybe the fire mage could use its blood as a resource and ignite their life force to cast higher level spells.
I do like the idea of building resources for magic by using abilities. It's hard trying to make a mage that's not pure attrition and still give them utility magic for outside combat
For the different types of fire maybe just change the damage dice to reflect their source and assign that fire damage takes the lower or higher dice. Hellfire: Fire + Fire Pyrokinetic: Psychic + Fire Fire Mage: Energy + Fire Could probably do that with all damage dice so that a fire sword replaces a damage dice (basically an Advantage die equivalent) for the lowest d6 rolled. Then the more powerful fire sword gives the initial advantage replacement but also adds to the total d6s rolled. Just a thought I had. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with.
Keeping a robust language system in a "cinematic" game system is weird. Movies always handwave away language differences, and nobody cares. The only reason D&D has different languages is because Lord of the Rings played with language, and that was only because Tolkien was a professor of ancient languages.
I haven’t heard this talked about yet, so sorry if I’ve missed it. But are y’all taking any non-combat design cues from fiction first games like those in the PbtA system or Blades in the Dark. Things like clocks were great when compared to 4e’s skill challenge and the amount of abilities and moves that specifically give players narrative power have become my favorite part of TTRPGs. If MCDM could marry those ideals with their combat system, that would be amazing. Especially because y’all are already playing in the 2D6 space. I would hate to see you leave that.
Yeah I really hope they don't treat everything as combat. Blades and PbtA games have progressed way beyond this and it would be a real shame for this game not to learn from these advances
Elementalist can fit a peacekeeper archetype similar to Aang in ATLA they seek balance in the elements and their surroundings. Maybe it can buff allies and buff enemies but strategically like I give the allies fire damage and I give the enemies the ability to fly but were in a cave.
Idk if this is useful, but a recent study showed that reviews have sort of evolved to either be minimum or maximum. Example is an Uber will still get a 5 star just because it was fine. Which is not reflective of 5 stars. 5 stars should mean above and beyond. And so what we’re finding out is that anything below 4.8 is to be avoided. Which is wild. Just a thought when considering ratings. Rating distributions aren’t what they used to be and I think you could consider moving away from numerical ratings for future play tests. Examples include phrases like “very satisfied” or “not satisfied”. I mention this only because they say there isn’t any mid coming in. That’s it’s either 1 or 4-5. Well those 4s might be more mid than you believe. Regardless so excited for this rpg. And I know you will make an incredible which I undoubtedly be playing!
I mean the other obvious bias is that the patrons are filling the survey, and the patrons probably like most of the design. Feel safe assuming they know that tho lol
In an Uber review a low score can cause a harmful effect to the driver/passager being reviewed. Giving someone a low score can feel like you are punishing them, like reporting a disruptive player in a video-game. In a playtest, the review is given directly to the devs and neither party is being judged on it; the devs and reviewers have a common goal of making the game better. If a playtester is mincing words or misrepresenting their opinion in any way, they are just losing the opportunity to give feedback and since there are thousands of playtesters, any misrepresented feedback will just be noise.
Agreed! I feel like modern survey culture is almost ruining the usefulness of surveys. Nowadays they flat out tell you that 5/5 is the only correct answer. What's the point of asking if you're going to intentionally bias the results?
So the name of your game is “And! You don’t know it. And, you can go to sleep tonight knowing you don’t know what the name is!” Seems kind of a long name for me 😂😂❤
11:30 funnily enough I do know of at least one system which does use a jenga tower for a resolution mechanic and I've even periodically stolen that for my own games, but that was to serve a very specific purpose and it was also spread out over a lot of progress, so it made sense. Just throwing a Jenga tower into your design to stand out is a bad idea.
How is MCDM RPG going to avoid the pitfalls that 4e? Level 1 has a lot of stuff and fights are pretty taxing. Fun but taxing. How does that scale in later levels so battle just arent slogs?
I saw the thumbnail and thought it waa the Roll for combat podcast "oh stephen got matt AND james for this episode!" then i reqlized it is mcdm channel "of course matt would never be in another people show".
So, a question for MCDM on crits. Assuming 2d6 is the roll, why must a crit be on a high damage roll only? You are already doing lots of damage and that is cool in itself. Why not make crits simply on a double and thus allow "cool stuff" on low rolls as well.
Double rolls occur with an incidence of approximately 17%. Rolling an 11 or 12 on 2d6 occurs with an incidence of around 5%. So it will come down to whether the reward for a critical role is valuable enough that having it occurs 17% of the time isn't too unbalanced, as opposed to it happening 5% of the time.
That is all true, but will come down to balancing anyway in the same way that you will need to balance the effect vs probability from the 11/12 result. I am of the opinion that a higher probability of "cool stuff" would be more fun. But on a different note, why should it be 5%? The only reason I can see is that was what you got from a d20. The "Cool" factor of getting interesting stuff from a double when you roll 2 die should be more important that the historic link to 5% that came from using the d20. @@MrSchmickers1978au
I understand what you mean but the probability is not necessarily relevant to the question as that will need to be taken into account for the design of the "cool stuff" anyway. Why should we be bound to 5% just because that is the probability in d20 systems? Rolling doubles on in a 2 die system is a nice and easy to understand event and more "cool stuff" is more fun.@@MrSchmickers1978au
I understand your point. In my opinion, the probability was not relevant to my question as the effect of the critical hit would need to be balanced in the design anyway. The more important question is whether it would be fun to do "cool stuff" on a double. On the probability, why would we want 5%? Rolling a d20 and only critting on a 20 gets to the 5%, but that does not mean it's better, it's simply what we expect from playing d20 systems for so long.
For the 2d6 issue, you could assign a dice number between say 2-6 for extra damage when rolled for certain classes. Example: A rogue might have [6 - 5], where the format is [die, damage], for their class, so they roll 2d6 and get a 4 and 6 on the dice. Since they rolled the 6 value, they get an extra flat 5 damage lets say, for a total of 15 damage. A fighter could have [4,5,6 - 2] for their class, and on that same roll of a 4 and 6, they get a flat 2 damage on both dice, for a total of 14 damage.
As a Patreon, I can say that they have looked at some remedies to this issue already. Not sure yet on what will survive and we'll get in the next playtest material. I would also need to bring this up (because others might), but the MCDM team is not looking for suggestions from the community atm, and that includes unprompted suggestions. That is strictly enforced in the Discord server, and you might get bonked for it here as well.
@@MichaelG485 It's pretty simple really, just adding a flat bonus when a class specific dice value is rolled. It could help break up the same damage issue.
I love that they took the balance of 4e but gave each class a different economy, so they feel properly different. But I wish they'd give up the grid-based wargaming aspect and embrace exploration. Open world exploration is where it's at in video games as well as OSR. Counting squares is for Monopoly.
Hard disagree, I love SRPGs and it's a key part of what I enjoy in D&D. There are too many games these days that handwave away physical space and make things loose and imprecise
Hmmm I watched and listened, well as good or bad as my listening skills are. I'm not sure I can even listen, but I try. The thing is I'm not really sure I learned anything. I guess it does imply that you are working on the game at least. And hey no giving Dael a hard time, she is on your show helping you, so mellow out.
Yeah, you definitely should work on your listening skills, cause clearly stuff went in one ear and out the other. Maybe "understanding" should be your next step. Also, bro, Dael is on jokes and they listen to her all the time - why are you fighting for her maidenly honor, mellow out.
Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't like the idea of always hitting. MCDM wants a heroic tactical cinematic experience. In what cinematic experience does everyone always hit? Certainly not Star Wars or Dune or any fantasy movies or shows, or sci-fi or fantasy novels. All stories have upbeats and downbeats; Combat is also supposed to have these upbeats and downbeats. The upbeat is a hit with the high upbeat being a crit; the downbeat is missing your attack. This is also supposed to be a Tactical game. Well, strategies on making your character better at hitting is one of the major tactical aspects that draws me to roleplaying game mechanics. I'll wait and see how it plays out.
I think this game makes more sense making HP more of an abstraction representing the ability to not get severely injured. The Armor as HP leans into that. It's not "getting hit" but barely dodging or taking glancing blows. Getting a hit on the armor still hurts and slows you down but let's you take a lot more. I had misgivings, but seeing it in play and the way reactions can reduce enemy damage so much. Turning a heavy (high damage) hit into 3 damage or negating it completely is cool, and the stacking bonuses to hit is still there in the form of boons and I've seen some pretty bonkers high-notes from those attacks, and the low note of dealing 6 damage with a bad roll is still a low but less unsatisfying than a total miss
You have to first consider what is a miss, that is, what it means. A miss is a dice roll that did not result in the game state changing. And that is terrible game design. When you roll the dice, then Something Has To Change about the game state. Because otherwise you could have achieved nothing happening by simply by not doing anything, so why you bothered to roll the dice in the first place? In other words, the GM could narrate characters trading blows and missing each other for a hundred rounds if he feels like it, but when the dice are picked up then we are always engaging with the dramatic moment where a blow connects and the flow of the combat turns one way or another.
yeah a lot of this just comes down to how you conceptualize HP and Damage. Many 5E DM's don't describe misses as literal 'misses' (because after a certain skill level that feels unrealistic and unheroic). OSR systems often describe HP as 'hit protrection' to try to stress that you aren't really 'hit' with the potential for injury until you hit 0. I agree that combat has 'beats', but i cant think of many movie's where the exciting dramatic fight scene shows a character just whiffing goofily and falling on their ass. plenty of movies have heroes hitting their enemies with little effect, which it seems like MCDMRPG is trying to depict. also: trying to maximize yr hit chance isn't really different then maximizing damage if instead of worrying about missing you have to worry about your damage being so negligible your enemy is going to hit you hard before you can down them.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 I don't think missing is intrinsically bad. I get what you are saying about it not advancing the game-state, but there is theoretical value in that you're advancing time, costing the attacker an action. When you build for Defense, you can essentially cancel enemy actions, expend their resources etc. that said I think passive defenses are boring. You make choices outside combat to make it expensive to damage your character in combat. On the other hand, active defense is a tactical choice, has a cost, and happens within the combat. I think there could be potential there, but D&D doesn't really feel designed around that, it's a fail state that means nothing happens. Pathfinder I think is better with the Crit failure system
No one replying to this is really understanding the position. I tolerate HP because its quick and easy and a reflection of video games. But when it comes to combat I want play by play, swing by swing combat because that reflects both reality and the cinematic experience I want to have. This is the cinematic experience we see in fantasy, kung fu, science fantasy, and action movies (and often read in fasntasy novels). This is the experience I want to have. I like the "to hit" mechanic. I find it fun! Now, whether I will like MCDM rpg remains to be seen. Perhaps I will be able to conceptualize it as you all seem to leaning toward but I think probably not. Maybe tho, there will be other aspects of the game that I will find fun. We'll see.
"Nobody missed the to hit role." - well, simply put: if you want the to hit role, you are not going to be on the play test as this game has the core concept of always hitting. That simple. And that is a core mechanic, that is the essence of the game (and one of the reasons I am not backing this game....).
With the Power Roll that's might no longer be the case. Before it was impossible to not deal damage, now if you create an ability or item you can decide that if you roll low, you deal no damage. This new system supports that. If you write that a low roll on some attack is 3 damage and some target has damage resistance 3, is possible to have a null result, were a character missed. Something like a firearm could have a misfire result on low rolls and deal more damage on a high roll, for instance. That's what makes this new system much more powerful than the previous one, and probably easier to design/homebrew stuff for also.
And that should be fine. If you feel an "attack" roll or a role that provides success or a null result is needed for you. There are ton of games that do that.
@@danrimo826 I mean, every poll done by a company has a self selection bias to it. The trick is to write your poll in a way that makes that not statistically significant.
Survey designer and analyst here. I’d urge caution on interpreting 4/5 on a satisfaction scale as positive if you are seeing it consistently. Survey takers view satisfaction scales through the lens of expectations, and are also frequently subject to affirmative bias. It’s pretty rare to get a histogram that puts 3/5 in the true middle of the data. The way we try to design survey questions around this issue is to have statements that are meant to have low answers. This can be difficult with satisfaction scales, so try success scales and ask a question that is supposed to be answered “totally unsuccessful”. Then compare results on those choices and you can calibrate your interpretation so you understand that maybe your true middle is 3.6/5.
That seems like a very cool solution but wouldn’t everyone that reads the question simply flip their answer around? (For example they would answer 1/5 when they would have answered 5/5)
if it worked in this way it would not really give you that much more insight into the middle of the data
@@G_Alamia that could be happening, but often the issue is that people get "stuck" at one end of the bubbles, so your objective is to get people to stop and read the questions and flip their answers around. But, also, it's the reason why satisfaction scales are tricky because it's hard to normalize. On something like agreement you can ask a question like, "I miss rolling a d20 and occasionally missing my turn entirely" and then you expect to get disagreement. Satisfaction is always dangerous because of how subjective it is. When we're designing studies for work, we tend to do Importance and success scales for each statement so you can say "people say X is important and they are doing poorly" or "People say they are doing very well, but think that criteria doesn't matter".
I'm no expert of course, but I'm concerned that they may be getting too much input from people inclined to favor whatever they do, partly because they are patrons, backers, etc, ending up with a lot more "yes men" than objective participants. I wonder if this isn't or shouldn't at some point be a consideration. Otherwise, it seems, they'd be making a game for a select group without input from the wider potential community.
@@MemphiStig I think they're taking a pretty active stance against the echo chamber. The surveys are a pulse, but their discord and patreon state pretty clearly that they're not interested in unsolicited ideas or feedback. I think the surveys are really feedback. I think the real issue my comment was addressing is not that they're only going to hear "yes" but that if you do hear that in a survey, you should distrust the survey. Time will tell, of course.
@@alexwbakker Good to hear. Thanks.
These Q&A videos are a daelight
Love that Matt silently repeats “making my way” after James says it at 1:33.
I also like the fact that you all address the issue of game mechanics feeling or seeming similar to those from other games as a functional element of design.
I’ve seen this issue brought up a number of times recently, as “X is the same subsystem as Y from another game”. However, it’s the way in which those various subsystems, bespoke or not, are combined to create an overall experience of play and support certain types of stories that seems to matter most in a constructive vein.
Nothing beats the casual audacity of one Dael Kingsmill ❤
I got so excited and rushed over to watch this and then realized that I got to see it live.
lol same
I just did the same thing.
I immediately thought "Wtf how did I miss one of these!?" before sighing in relief lol
I love that these are done by Dael, great interviewing skills and so much charm
Dael and her magical charm are what get us to show up for these. ❤
I'm kind of hoping for a lightweight version of negotiations too. Maybe guards have just 1 patience, are motivated by duty and money, and have the pitfalls of conspiracy/deceit and getting caught.
I feel like double page spread of really short and snappy example rules that fit archetypes could be a fun way of naturalising it into the system as a whole.
That sounds very much like the sort of scenario they have said "is just normal roleplay with a die roll" like it is in 5e.
To quote them, they're not trying to make what you're already doing more complicated.
Still betting on "Draw Steel!" as the name. Love seeing these updates.
I like that
Draw Steel or Heroes and Monsters are my guesses as the most likely names.
Nah, no way 😂
It's a relief that the game won't be called "Matt Colvile Dungeon Master RPG" and the GM on it isn't even called Dungeon Master.
I really appreciate this open creative process, thank you!
Loved the difference in reactions to Daels' puns from James and Matt. First one, Jams loves it, Matt just rolls his eyes. Second one, James just about groans, Matt says "Dael, youre fired!"
😂😂😂😂
And the almost slip of the name of the game! Accidentally, or is Matt playing a little fun game wih us? What a tease!
😂😂😂😂
I feel like the issue with variance could also be "softly" addressed through monster design; let's say bosses have features like, "If this creature takes 8 damage or less, it instead takes 4 damage"; now you _want_ those big hits, and scoring one becomes everyone's responsibility, like in PF2e. Monsters are very much in the designer's ballpark, and the way they are built can be used to nudge the math without compromising any of the player-facing stuff.
This is sounding great. Really appreciate the behind the scenes.
Every time you give us an update on the state of the game I get more and more excited for it. Keep up the great work!
Dale is a good moderator for these. Great input that expand questions.
It's called "The MaCaDaMia Retro-Pulse Guarantee".
Does a more Powered by the Apocolypse skills system fit the 2d6 better? I always loved the idea of Success, "success but", and the failure mechanism of "making the players lives more interesting"
To me, designing a game is like walking around the gardens of Versailles and deciding whether each individual flower gets its own name. Bon chance!
Every tidbit about this game makes me more excited for the final product- or I suppose, more excited for the backer playtest since that's what we'll get first! Also, aaaaagh the name! Gives us the name! We wants it!
God, it’s kinda crazy to think they know what the name of the game is right now. Knowing Matt, it’s gonna be so sick hahaha I can’t wait to play this game!!
Amazing insight into the process - thanks for doing this all, best company in the world!🎉
I'm glad to hear that some thought is being given to onboarding and learning curve for the game. I hope also that we'll end up with some variety in the classes, with some being more complex (for those who like such things), and other being more simple (for dummies like me). I hate that in 5e, I can no longer fall back on my old position of "Eh, I'll just play a Martial", because even the Martials have so many feats and gimmicks to keep track of that they might as well be spellcasters.
As for the name, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they announced, "Yeah, we're just calling it "The MCDM RPG', because that's what everyone's calling it anyway, and we've built up so much brand awareness at this point that calling it "Cudgel Spleen" or whatever would just confuse people."
Yeah, I think every game needs its own Champion Fighter or Assassin Rogue kinda thing.
One thing I remember being annoyed by on the likert scale questions was that I felt like there wasn't a good way to impart nuance in the in-between results, though the text sections did somewhat help. Some of the ones I gave a 3 were "I am conflicted", some were "this never came up and that's ok but I can't speak to its suitability", some were "this felt blandly functional", and some were "this came up but it left so little impression that I don't recall if I felt anything".
I hope the monster book includes more example scenarios for things like negotiations
Great Q&A, Matt's mic+opposite shoulder alignment caused some major confusion with me at the start, like he had one very tall shoulder or was sitting angled with only his head aligned with the camera
Matt and James, you guys are just amazing! Thank you for building this rad game for us!
I need "puting the fun in fun-ction" to be quoted in the manuals somewhere. It's like the best subtitle for a chapter about some mechanic
Deal is the best moderator for this sort of discussion!
I'm so looking forward to this game!
Well I, for one, would love to play a jenga match against the final boss of my campaign to see if I can convince him to join our party.
I look forward to playing it! Take as long as you need to make it good :) Also appreciate the editing cutting out the (presumably) unnecessary bits of the stream.
Seeing these Patreon Q&As on UA-cam reminds me that I should check Patreon.
Would there be any Cavalry Kit? I would love to see that archetype, since it is pretty poorly represented or even totally absent in other rpgs.
Kinda low-key adore Dale. Good interview.
It's _great_ to hear that they're thinking of increasing the volatility. To-hit rolls play an important part in maintaining the tension of an encounter - at any moment, you _could_ crit, or be critted, in a way which would turn the tides. This prevents you from ever being 100% confident in a battle's outcome. While I'm interested to see where the game goes without attack rolls, I do think that aspect of theirs needs to be reintroduced in another way.
So, they have maintained criticals in their current design.
It's part of the damage roll.
So, are you coming at this from a different angle?
I wish dael would moderate my phonecalls too, it really takes the edge off a crusty old nerd
I missed the kickstarter because I was too poor at the time, but I’m excited to become a patron here as soon as I can.
Been blown away with the quality and feel and direction of everything so far, and looking forward running the full game for my friends one day:D
I don't think Patron's get a copy of the final product. You can beta test stuff, but it's not a full purchase.
@@NerdyZanoth that’s okay! I just want to support the creators and the products they produce, frankly.
I’m always a sucker for a class that uses its own HP as a resource for spells, maybe the fire mage could use its blood as a resource and ignite their life force to cast higher level spells.
Keep up the great work guys.
I do like the idea of building resources for magic by using abilities. It's hard trying to make a mage that's not pure attrition and still give them utility magic for outside combat
Oh nice, I'll have to do timestamps for this again
Love Matt and James telepathy hand to head synced motions
I'ma be honest I had no idea or expectation that the name wasn't going to be MCDM RPG lol.
I have it on good authority that the MCDM RPG is called
Let this be a warning to you all
For the different types of fire maybe just change the damage dice to reflect their source and assign that fire damage takes the lower or higher dice.
Hellfire: Fire + Fire
Pyrokinetic: Psychic + Fire
Fire Mage: Energy + Fire
Could probably do that with all damage dice so that a fire sword replaces a damage dice (basically an Advantage die equivalent) for the lowest d6 rolled. Then the more powerful fire sword gives the initial advantage replacement but also adds to the total d6s rolled.
Just a thought I had. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with.
Yes don't let "Perfect be the enemy of Good.
Pacing is everything 27:56
Putting the fun in function 🤓
Keeping a robust language system in a "cinematic" game system is weird. Movies always handwave away language differences, and nobody cares. The only reason D&D has different languages is because Lord of the Rings played with language, and that was only because Tolkien was a professor of ancient languages.
I haven’t heard this talked about yet, so sorry if I’ve missed it. But are y’all taking any non-combat design cues from fiction first games like those in the PbtA system or Blades in the Dark. Things like clocks were great when compared to 4e’s skill challenge and the amount of abilities and moves that specifically give players narrative power have become my favorite part of TTRPGs. If MCDM could marry those ideals with their combat system, that would be amazing. Especially because y’all are already playing in the 2D6 space. I would hate to see you leave that.
Yeah I really hope they don't treat everything as combat. Blades and PbtA games have progressed way beyond this and it would be a real shame for this game not to learn from these advances
Elementalist can fit a peacekeeper archetype similar to Aang in ATLA they seek balance in the elements and their surroundings. Maybe it can buff allies and buff enemies but strategically like I give the allies fire damage and I give the enemies the ability to fly but were in a cave.
I know for a fact my DM is immediately adding a Jenga tower to their skill checks starting next game.
Idk if this is useful, but a recent study showed that reviews have sort of evolved to either be minimum or maximum. Example is an Uber will still get a 5 star just because it was fine. Which is not reflective of 5 stars. 5 stars should mean above and beyond. And so what we’re finding out is that anything below 4.8 is to be avoided. Which is wild.
Just a thought when considering ratings. Rating distributions aren’t what they used to be and I think you could consider moving away from numerical ratings for future play tests. Examples include phrases like “very satisfied” or “not satisfied”.
I mention this only because they say there isn’t any mid coming in. That’s it’s either 1 or 4-5. Well those 4s might be more mid than you believe.
Regardless so excited for this rpg. And I know you will make an incredible which I undoubtedly be playing!
Very Good insight
I mean the other obvious bias is that the patrons are filling the survey, and the patrons probably like most of the design.
Feel safe assuming they know that tho lol
In an Uber review a low score can cause a harmful effect to the driver/passager being reviewed. Giving someone a low score can feel like you are punishing them, like reporting a disruptive player in a video-game. In a playtest, the review is given directly to the devs and neither party is being judged on it; the devs and reviewers have a common goal of making the game better. If a playtester is mincing words or misrepresenting their opinion in any way, they are just losing the opportunity to give feedback and since there are thousands of playtesters, any misrepresented feedback will just be noise.
Agreed! I feel like modern survey culture is almost ruining the usefulness of surveys. Nowadays they flat out tell you that 5/5 is the only correct answer. What's the point of asking if you're going to intentionally bias the results?
So the name of your game is “And! You don’t know it. And, you can go to sleep tonight knowing you don’t know what the name is!”
Seems kind of a long name for me 😂😂❤
We need more Dune!
11:30 funnily enough I do know of at least one system which does use a jenga tower for a resolution mechanic and I've even periodically stolen that for my own games, but that was to serve a very specific purpose and it was also spread out over a lot of progress, so it made sense. Just throwing a Jenga tower into your design to stand out is a bad idea.
How is MCDM RPG going to avoid the pitfalls that 4e?
Level 1 has a lot of stuff and fights are pretty taxing. Fun but taxing.
How does that scale in later levels so battle just arent slogs?
I wonder if the characters from say July with too much shit, would be fun for solo play or duo play?
Llevelys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw the thumbnail and thought it waa the Roll for combat podcast "oh stephen got matt AND james for this episode!" then i reqlized it is mcdm channel "of course matt would never be in another people show".
He does!! Very occasionally! There was one episode of Satine Phoenix's show! And. Uh. Others, presumably!
can we get more dune board game please
THE NAME
So, a question for MCDM on crits.
Assuming 2d6 is the roll, why must a crit be on a high damage roll only? You are already doing lots of damage and that is cool in itself.
Why not make crits simply on a double and thus allow "cool stuff" on low rolls as well.
Double rolls occur with an incidence of approximately 17%. Rolling an 11 or 12 on 2d6 occurs with an incidence of around 5%. So it will come down to whether the reward for a critical role is valuable enough that having it occurs 17% of the time isn't too unbalanced, as opposed to it happening 5% of the time.
That is all true, but will come down to balancing anyway in the same way that you will need to balance the effect vs probability from the 11/12 result. I am of the opinion that a higher probability of "cool stuff" would be more fun.
But on a different note, why should it be 5%? The only reason I can see is that was what you got from a d20. The "Cool" factor of getting interesting stuff from a double when you roll 2 die should be more important that the historic link to 5% that came from using the d20.
@@MrSchmickers1978au
I understand what you mean but the probability is not necessarily relevant to the question as that will need to be taken into account for the design of the "cool stuff" anyway.
Why should we be bound to 5% just because that is the probability in d20 systems?
Rolling doubles on in a 2 die system is a nice and easy to understand event and more "cool stuff" is more fun.@@MrSchmickers1978au
I understand your point. In my opinion, the probability was not relevant to my question as the effect of the critical hit would need to be balanced in the design anyway. The more important question is whether it would be fun to do "cool stuff" on a double.
On the probability, why would we want 5%? Rolling a d20 and only critting on a 20 gets to the 5%, but that does not mean it's better, it's simply what we expect from playing d20 systems for so long.
For the 2d6 issue, you could assign a dice number between say 2-6 for extra damage when rolled for certain classes.
Example: A rogue might have [6 - 5], where the format is [die, damage], for their class, so they roll 2d6 and get a 4 and 6 on the dice. Since they rolled the 6 value, they get an extra flat 5 damage lets say, for a total of 15 damage.
A fighter could have [4,5,6 - 2] for their class, and on that same roll of a 4 and 6, they get a flat 2 damage on both dice, for a total of 14 damage.
As a Patreon, I can say that they have looked at some remedies to this issue already. Not sure yet on what will survive and we'll get in the next playtest material.
I would also need to bring this up (because others might), but the MCDM team is not looking for suggestions from the community atm, and that includes unprompted suggestions. That is strictly enforced in the Discord server, and you might get bonked for it here as well.
That would be needlessly complex.
@@MichaelG485 It's pretty simple really, just adding a flat bonus when a class specific dice value is rolled. It could help break up the same damage issue.
@@MarxMayhem Alright well then - I'll shut up.
Where is more Dune gameplay!!!!
Was about to ask that, lmao
I love that they took the balance of 4e but gave each class a different economy, so they feel properly different. But I wish they'd give up the grid-based wargaming aspect and embrace exploration. Open world exploration is where it's at in video games as well as OSR. Counting squares is for Monopoly.
Hard disagree, I love SRPGs and it's a key part of what I enjoy in D&D. There are too many games these days that handwave away physical space and make things loose and imprecise
Hmmm I watched and listened, well as good or bad as my listening skills are. I'm not sure I can even listen, but I try. The thing is I'm not really sure I learned anything. I guess it does imply that you are working on the game at least. And hey no giving Dael a hard time, she is on your show helping you, so mellow out.
Yeah, you definitely should work on your listening skills, cause clearly stuff went in one ear and out the other. Maybe "understanding" should be your next step. Also, bro, Dael is on jokes and they listen to her all the time - why are you fighting for her maidenly honor, mellow out.
Make something similar to 5e is not as good nowdays
First comment!
Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't like the idea of always hitting. MCDM wants a heroic tactical cinematic experience. In what cinematic experience does everyone always hit? Certainly not Star Wars or Dune or any fantasy movies or shows, or sci-fi or fantasy novels. All stories have upbeats and downbeats; Combat is also supposed to have these upbeats and downbeats. The upbeat is a hit with the high upbeat being a crit; the downbeat is missing your attack. This is also supposed to be a Tactical game. Well, strategies on making your character better at hitting is one of the major tactical aspects that draws me to roleplaying game mechanics. I'll wait and see how it plays out.
I think this game makes more sense making HP more of an abstraction representing the ability to not get severely injured. The Armor as HP leans into that.
It's not "getting hit" but barely dodging or taking glancing blows. Getting a hit on the armor still hurts and slows you down but let's you take a lot more.
I had misgivings, but seeing it in play and the way reactions can reduce enemy damage so much. Turning a heavy (high damage) hit into 3 damage or negating it completely is cool, and the stacking bonuses to hit is still there in the form of boons and I've seen some pretty bonkers high-notes from those attacks, and the low note of dealing 6 damage with a bad roll is still a low but less unsatisfying than a total miss
You have to first consider what is a miss, that is, what it means. A miss is a dice roll that did not result in the game state changing. And that is terrible game design.
When you roll the dice, then Something Has To Change about the game state. Because otherwise you could have achieved nothing happening by simply by not doing anything, so why you bothered to roll the dice in the first place?
In other words, the GM could narrate characters trading blows and missing each other for a hundred rounds if he feels like it, but when the dice are picked up then we are always engaging with the dramatic moment where a blow connects and the flow of the combat turns one way or another.
yeah a lot of this just comes down to how you conceptualize HP and Damage. Many 5E DM's don't describe misses as literal 'misses' (because after a certain skill level that feels unrealistic and unheroic). OSR systems often describe HP as 'hit protrection' to try to stress that you aren't really 'hit' with the potential for injury until you hit 0. I agree that combat has 'beats', but i cant think of many movie's where the exciting dramatic fight scene shows a character just whiffing goofily and falling on their ass. plenty of movies have heroes hitting their enemies with little effect, which it seems like MCDMRPG is trying to depict.
also: trying to maximize yr hit chance isn't really different then maximizing damage if instead of worrying about missing you have to worry about your damage being so negligible your enemy is going to hit you hard before you can down them.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 I don't think missing is intrinsically bad. I get what you are saying about it not advancing the game-state, but there is theoretical value in that you're advancing time, costing the attacker an action.
When you build for Defense, you can essentially cancel enemy actions, expend their resources etc. that said I think passive defenses are boring. You make choices outside combat to make it expensive to damage your character in combat.
On the other hand, active defense is a tactical choice, has a cost, and happens within the combat. I think there could be potential there, but D&D doesn't really feel designed around that, it's a fail state that means nothing happens.
Pathfinder I think is better with the Crit failure system
No one replying to this is really understanding the position. I tolerate HP because its quick and easy and a reflection of video games. But when it comes to combat I want play by play, swing by swing combat because that reflects both reality and the cinematic experience I want to have. This is the cinematic experience we see in fantasy, kung fu, science fantasy, and action movies (and often read in fasntasy novels). This is the experience I want to have. I like the "to hit" mechanic. I find it fun! Now, whether I will like MCDM rpg remains to be seen. Perhaps I will be able to conceptualize it as you all seem to leaning toward but I think probably not. Maybe tho, there will be other aspects of the game that I will find fun. We'll see.
"Nobody missed the to hit role." - well, simply put: if you want the to hit role, you are not going to be on the play test as this game has the core concept of always hitting. That simple. And that is a core mechanic, that is the essence of the game (and one of the reasons I am not backing this game....).
With the Power Roll that's might no longer be the case. Before it was impossible to not deal damage, now if you create an ability or item you can decide that if you roll low, you deal no damage. This new system supports that. If you write that a low roll on some attack is 3 damage and some target has damage resistance 3, is possible to have a null result, were a character missed. Something like a firearm could have a misfire result on low rolls and deal more damage on a high roll, for instance. That's what makes this new system much more powerful than the previous one, and probably easier to design/homebrew stuff for also.
And that should be fine.
If you feel an "attack" roll or a role that provides success or a null result is needed for you. There are ton of games that do that.
Yeah they are "polling the converted" on that one
@@danrimo826 I mean, every poll done by a company has a self selection bias to it.
The trick is to write your poll in a way that makes that not statistically significant.
When do they think the MCDM rpg come out on kickstarter?
We already did our crowd funding project. More info here mcdm.gg/rpg