MCDM starts work on its RPG Monday!

[overgeeked]

You should check out his Tuesday stream. He may have reverse course because he said can't get the kind of results he wants without funky dice.

Yeah, he said so explicitly on the Friday night stream. Oh well.

He's meaning more like FFG dice or Genesys dice, not merely dice that are easily mapped to a normal scheme.

We already did that bit earlier in the thread. No point repeating it.

Oddly, Matt did say something about having big news about the game but it's too early to say. Not sure what that could be at this point. It's not even to a stable idea document. As he was streaming and talking about it he opened a document and was surprised by additional dice James added and changing faces, etc. Only thing I could think of is a pledge from Critical Role to do a one-shot or have Colville come in and run a one shot once the game is ready to go. Can't imagine a better bit of publicity. But that's pure speculation on my part.

He was also mum about the OGL and CC announcement today.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Yeah, he said so explicitly on the Friday night stream. Oh well.

We already did that bit earlier in the thread. No point repeating it.

Well, I just meant that Matt had specifically been clear in the Tuesday stream that he meant that style.

Oddly, Matt did say something about having big news about the game but it's too early to say. Not sure what that could be at this point. It's not even to a stable idea document. As he was streaming and talking about it he opened a document and was surprised by additional dice James added and changing faces, etc.

That sounds like Matt. He gets excited to talk about things, but has enough sense to check himself. Usually. It could be anything from a new artist, an agreement to do models, new designer, etc.

He was also mum about the OGL and CC announcement today.

That also sounds like Matt. It's already too late for him and his team. They're making their own thing, and "the Seattle company's" products are really not what Matt has cared about for a long time. His content is mostly edition-agnostic (excepting classes and monster blocks). K&W and S&F are basically game-agnostic, too. The amount of actual content for actually just 5e is really small.

Besides, CC is good news... for WotC's content for 3e and 5e. It tells us nothing about OneDND.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, I just meant that Matt had specifically been clear in the Tuesday stream that he meant that style.

Right. And there was already a discussion about how it's a false dichotomy. You absolutely can generate results along several axes with the standard set of dice. Going with specialty funky dice is absolutely a choice. It's their game so it's their choice. But it's still a choice, it is in no way necessary. "We want to generate results along several axes, therefore we have to use specialty funky dice." Nope. That's false.

That sounds like Matt. He gets excited to talk about things, but has enough sense to check himself. Usually. It could be anything from a new artist, an agreement to do models, new designer, etc.

Absolutely. I just didn't see any point to not talking about an artist signing on or models or a designer etc. No reason to keep that a secret, really. "We're in talks with X, that's exciting..." six months later... "Well, talks with X didn't go well, their schedule filled up before we could secure their time. Too bad. Maybe next time."

His content is mostly edition-agnostic (excepting classes and monster blocks). K&W and S&F are basically game-agnostic, too. The amount of actual content for actually just 5e is really small.

I can't agree with you there. Sorry.

 

[aramis erak]

Right. And there was already a discussion about how it's a false dichotomy. You absolutely can generate results along several axes with the standard set of dice. Going with specialty funky dice is absolutely a choice. It's their game so it's their choice. But it's still a choice, it is in no way necessary. "We want to generate results along several axes, therefore we have to use specialty funky dice." Nope. That's false.

You're generating fully independent axies. that's NOT what I want.
I want semi-independent not totally independent results. Jay Little apparently did, too...

The odds of double-extremes are much reduced by the non-numeric results system.

There are several design space elements about dice:

1. numbers of dice needed
2. boolean or quantitative result space (in other words, does margin of success/failure matter?)
3. intrinsic math needs
4. for multi-axis results, interdependence
   1. Mathmatical interdependence (such as cancellation)
   2. appearance interdependence (such as putting different result space axises on different dice or on the same die.

Your approach achieves vaguely similar results, but provides a much wider result space, and with fewer dice, and without the much reduced occurrence of both axises high or both low. further, it lacks the direct ease of Ability X gives y dice of z color adjusting both axises at once.

See, the green die...
2/8 faces have 1s
1/8 has 2s
2/8 have 1a
1/8 has 2a.
1/8 has 1s & 1a
1/8 is blank

This gives a range of outcomes on a single die of..

	0a	1a	2a
0s	1/8	2/8	1/8
1s	2/8	1/8	0/8
2s	1/8	0/8	0/8

Whereas, if we put them on separate dice, with similar odds (4/3/1) - 4/8 blank, 3/8 1x, 1/8 2x

	0a	1a	2a
0s	16/64	12/64	4/64
1s	12/64	9/64	3/64
2s	4/64	3/64	1/64

It's not mathematically equivalent, the range is the same on either axis, but the dead zones of semi-independence are important.

The peak results on, say, 3 green...
SW green: (6s 0a ) (4s 2a) (2s 4a) (0s 6a)
This interdependence is a good thing for story. Especially in combat with autofire weapons. You don't get 6+base damage on 3 targets... you get a good hit on one, a moderate on two, a not very good on 3, and a I missed but good stuff happened anyway.

 

[overgeeked]

You're generating fully independent axies. that's NOT what I want.
I want semi-independent not totally independent results. Jay Little apparently did, too...

The odds of double-extremes are much reduced by the non-numeric results system.

There are several design space elements about dice:

1. numbers of dice needed
2. boolean or quantitative result space (in other words, does margin of success/failure matter?)
3. intrinsic math needs
4. for multi-axis results, interdependence
   1. Mathmatical interdependence (such as cancellation)
   2. appearance interdependence (such as putting different result space axises on different dice or on the same die.

Your approach achieves vaguely similar results, but provides a much wider result space, and with fewer dice, and without the much reduced occurrence of both axises high or both low. further, it lacks the direct ease of Ability X gives y dice of z color adjusting both axises at once.

See, the green die...
2/8 faces have 1s
1/8 has 2s
2/8 have 1a
1/8 has 2a.
1/8 has 1s & 1a
1/8 is blank

This gives a range of outcomes on a single die of..

	0a	1a	2a
0s	1/8	2/8	1/8
1s	2/8	1/8	0/8
2s	1/8	0/8	0/8

Whereas, if we put them on separate dice, with similar odds (4/3/1) - 4/8 blank, 3/8 1x, 1/8 2x

	0a	1a	2a
0s	16/64	12/64	4/64
1s	12/64	9/64	3/64
2s	4/64	3/64	1/64

It's not mathematically equivalent, the range is the same on either axis, but the dead zones of semi-independence are important.

The peak results on, say, 3 green...
SW green: (6s 0a ) (4s 2a) (2s 4a) (0s 6a)
This interdependence is a good thing for story. Especially in combat with autofire weapons. You don't get 6+base damage on 3 targets... you get a good hit on one, a moderate on two, a not very good on 3, and a I missed but good stuff happened anyway.

Yes, if you decide before you start designing the game that it has to have specialty funky dice then you’ll find ways to design with that in mind.

You’ll lean into that concept and find things “only” specialty funky dice can do. It’s still a choice you’re making. Not something you have to do.

You can design a game with normal funky dice that has interdependent results. You just ignore that and start from “we have to have special funky dice”.

To each their own. You dig ’em, I hate ’em.

 

[Staffan]

Right. And there was already a discussion about how it's a false dichotomy. You absolutely can generate results along several axes with the standard set of dice. Going with specialty funky dice is absolutely a choice. It's their game so it's their choice. But it's still a choice, it is in no way necessary. "We want to generate results along several axes, therefore we have to use specialty funky dice." Nope. That's false.

It's a lot easier with funky dice though. I mean, you could do something like "4+ is a success, and an odd roll is an advantage" (to use the terms Star Wars/Geneys uses), which would give a 1/6 chance of nothing, 2/6 one advantage, 2/6 one success, and 1/6 advantage and success. But that's complex, and hard to scale up to different sorts of dice, compared to just looking at the dice and count the symbols.

 

[Zaukrie]

His twitter thread sure read like 4e with all the PC synergies.....Which, I like.

 

[Retreater]

For L5R 5E, you need to learn 4 symbols.
For Genesys, 6 symbols and 2 cancellations.
For Star Wars, 8 symbols and 2 cancellations (the extra two symbols are for the force die)

You don't need to learn the result spaces. Those naturally evolve from understanding the individual axises. Success/failure is one continuum.

The newbs I've introduced with Star Wars find it far simpler than the math-focus of D&D 5E. And that far simpler than AD&D.

When I was running Star Wars, I had to have a player translate the dice for me and tell me what the results meant.
"That's a success, with a catastrophic failure, with a future boon - but we should probably talk out what would be a 'catastrophic failure' because it's probably not as bad as you'd subject us to."
And that was pretty much every roll. And I GMed this game for months.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

I caught his stream on accident while avoiding ads on another, and I found him oddly evasive. I asked how he intended to prevent his system from being 'misused', which was an issue he brought up, and he answered only insofar as to state he wasn't going to answer. He then went on about not stating the problems the system was attempting to solve on the off chance it wasn't able to, which coming from the indie design community I found very off putting. I also think designing a product for an established audience is rather more difficult than designing a product and building an audience from there. No matter what you do you're going to alienate some of them.

I agree the range of die results in most RPGs is far too wide, but disagree with changing target numbers on the fly. The solutions I've been pursuing are to have multiple pass/fail results rather than a single complicated result, and make sure all the numbers the player needs to know are on the character sheet and not arbitrarily arrived at by the GM, which is exactly what #PbtA does to limit its results to 3.

It's a shame RPG 'theory' and the like has become so poisonously political, as those discussions while inexplicable to laymen were really useful in solving the technical problems I'm facing now.

 

[darjr]

Check out Tuesday Game Design Chat