MCDM's New Tactical TTRPG Hits $1M Crowdfunding On First Day!

Matt Colville's MCDM is no stranger to crowdfunding, with three million dollar Kickstarters already under its belt. With the launch of The MCDM RPG, that makes four!

This new game is not a D&D variant or a supplement for D&D, which is what MCDM has focussed on so far. This is an all-new game which concentrates on tactical play, with a fulfilment goal of July 2025. It comes in two books--a 400-page 'Heroes' book and a 'Monsters' book which is an adaption of the existing Flee, Mortals!

The MCDM RPG

Whether you’re a group of local heroes sent to investigate mysterious goings-on in the nearby haunted wood, or famous mercenaries plotting and scheming in the big city, the MCDM RPG makes building adventures and fighting monsters fun.

www.backerkit.com

The game takes aim at traditional d20 fantasy gaming, referring to the burden of 'sacred cows from the 1970s', but point out that it's not a dungeon crawling or exploration game--its core activity is fighting monsters. The system is geared towards tactical combat--you roll 2d6, add an attribute, and do that damage; there's no separate attack roll.

At $40 for the base Heroes PDF and $70 for the hardcover (though there are discounts for both books if you buy them together), it's not a cheap buy-in, but with over 4,000 backers already that's not deterring anybody!

Even more ambitiously, one of the stretch goals is a Virtual Tabletop (VTT). There's already a working prototype of it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, those exact decisions are particularly the "I'm not interested in this game" aspect for me, since those are kind of two of the main points of D&D for me personally. But good for them making the game they want to play.

Also wouldn't have thought it before, but removing misses really doesnwork for me. Loses that sense of gambling and excitement thwt D&D combat posseses.

If you'd asked me a decade or so ago about the idea of attacks not missing I'd have said the same. But since then I've realized some things about mechanics that changed my mind:

1) A lot of non-d20 TT RPGs have mechanics such that, de facto, misses are extremely rare, and usually only unskilled combatant getting a spectacularly bad roll can outright miss without intervention from the target. People don't usually even note this, and you can play them for years without really catching it. Examples would be Shadowrun and most iterations of Storyteller. A skilled combatant is generally not going to miss - the question is - how hard are they going to hit, and how well will the target soak? So in real terms I don't think what MCDM is doing is very different there.

2) Many videogame RPGs, perhaps most, at this point, have misses either be non-existent or very rare, and even the few that use them, the odds tend to drastically lower than D&D (obviously excluding D&D-based and similar games like BG and Pathfinder here!), and that doesn't seem to make the gameplay in any way worse or even really more predictable, because it just shifts stuff around.

I'd also personally say I feel like there's a bit of a conflict between attrition-based play and having people miss/enemies save as much as they do in D&D and its ilk, like it's a design issue that hasn't yet been fully addressed by any edition of D&D or even any OSR game that I know of. Like I feel like the ultimate dungeon crawl resource grind TT RPG probably has less missing and less enemies saving than current d20 games have, but that's a whole other discussion!

For hyper-supweheeoic action, I'd go wrong something more abstract in action, like Powered by the Apocalypse.

The problem with PtbA is kind of weirdly a cultural one. The vast majority of designers who work in the PtbA space aren't big fans of D&D-style heroic face-smashing and stuff-taking and so on. To the point where the non-cancelled Dungeon World designer said if he designed Dungeon World 2, he's basically make a game that was totally un-D&D-like (which raises the question why you'd even call it Dungeon World 2). So there are no PtbA heroic fantasy games which really work for that - one could design one's own of course, but that's a lot of work. City of Mists sort of is adjacent to it, but like a lot of PtbA games, has a hyper-specific setting.

For an actual superheroes game though, PtbA has some great options - particularly MASKS which is honestly stunningly good design.

 

[Retreater]

I have to admit that I understand where MCDM is coming from in the design space. How many classic TSR-inspired dungeon fantasy RPGs are out there? Dozens? How many 4e-inspired games - I guess 13th Age?
I'm glad they're trying to fill a different need. With every video, my wife's ears perk up and she yells out "YES!" several times. ("It's like he's reading my mind.")
For me, I didn't back Shadowdark because it didn't seem distinguishable from every other OSR game on the market. I'm not thrilled about the 2024 revision because (so far) it's not distinguishable from the 2014 edition of D&D. Not overly excited about PF2 revision for the same reason.
The hobby is big enough where we can support many different styles of play. Not one style is right for every table - and as I'm coming to learn - not one style is right even for a single table all the time.

 

[deganawida]

If you'd asked me a decade or so ago about the idea of attacks not missing I'd have said the same. But since then I've realized some things about mechanics that changed my mind:

1) A lot of non-d20 TT RPGs have mechanics such that, de facto, misses are extremely rare, and usually only unskilled combatant getting a spectacularly bad roll can outright miss without intervention from the target. People don't usually even note this, and you can play them for years without really catching it. Examples would be Shadowrun and most iterations of Storyteller. A skilled combatant is generally not going to miss - the question is - how hard are they going to hit, and how well will the target soak? So in real terms I don't think what MCDM is doing is very different there.

2) Many videogame RPGs, perhaps most, at this point, have misses either be non-existent or very rare, and even the few that use them, the odds tend to drastically lower than D&D (obviously excluding D&D-based and similar games like BG and Pathfinder here!), and that doesn't seem to make the gameplay in any way worse or even really more predictable, because it just shifts stuff around.

I'd also personally say I feel like there's a bit of a conflict between attrition-based play and having people miss/enemies save as much as they do in D&D and its ilk, like it's a design issue that hasn't yet been fully addressed by any edition of D&D or even any OSR game that I know of. Like I feel like the ultimate dungeon crawl resource grind TT RPG probably has less missing and less enemies saving than current d20 games have, but that's a whole other discussion!

I’m similar in that I initially recoiled from no misses. However, I play a lot of video games (my group doesn’t get to play more than twice annually, due to scheduling), and most video games which I play, including fantasy video games, have made missing a rare occurrence. I also thought of my World of Darkness days, and don’t recall missing then, either. Additionally, BG3 made me absolutely sick of missing, as it felt horrible to have everyone miss in a turn, then half miss the next. Post-revelation, I'm okay with always hitting.

 

[Parmandur]

The main comparison to this game thst ai can think of in video games would be Fire Emblem, and missing is not uncommon, when Level is equal.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For me, I didn't back Shadowdark because it didn't seem distinguishable from every other OSR game on the market.

I found it distinguishable but I felt like it wasn't going hard enough after the stuff I actually liked about OSR/old-school play, and instead introducing stuff that narrowed the focus but didn't really improve the picture, like the random talents on level up, which felt like a weird interloper, design-wise (even the mid 1970s CalTech take on D&D, which basically originated stuff like talents/feats/non-magical non-racial abilities, let people choose them).

It was also slightly disappointing because Arcane Library's own adventures were totally not a bunch of grindy high-danger torch-measuring old school affairs, so it was weird to see her design an entire game around that.

I do think I slightly prefer it to DCC though (despite having a ton of DCC stuff thanks to various bundles). My favourite OSR remains Worlds Without Number though (which even solves multiple classic D&D issues which are still present in 5E!).

Additionally, BG3 made me absolutely sick of missing, as it felt horrible to have everyone miss in a turn, then half miss the next. Post-revelation, I'm okay with always hitting.

Yeah BG3 has a lot of ways to kind of mitigate missing, more than the tabletop, but even then it can get pretty frown-inducing. It's particularly obvious on reloads or repeat play-throughs where you'll use better tactics and maybe even have more optimized characters, but then the same fight is absolute grind or deeply painful because your guys just keep missing or the enemies save against everything. You're doing everything right, it just isn't working out. The same goes the other way to - I cast one spell, everyone failed to save, totally trivialized an actually kind of tricky fight, reloaded because I wanted to choose a different after-fight dialogue option (I didn't save in the dialogue because I didn't realize what I was picking), and my next try, I did the exact same thing, but all the enemies saved and it was kind of a bloodbath. I've seen the same happen at the table and BG3 has made me more aware of how much that sucks and also how much good rolls can compensate for slightly brainless play on my part lol!

 

[Zaukrie]

I really like the no missing idea a lot. The random part being damage works for me. I can't imagine I'll find someone to play with, though, and I did try not to back more stuff, so I'm still not in.....

 

[Reynard]

For me, I didn't back Shadowdark because it didn't seem distinguishable from every other OSR game on the market.

Not to shill too hard, but while Shadowdark has elements in common with OSR games it really is its own thing with its own feel.

On topic: I watched the Character Sheet interview with the lead designer (James, I think) and I am ever closer to backing this thing and getting back into the Patreon so I can be involved and be ready with some 3PP products.

 

[Retreater]

My favourite OSR remains Worlds Without Number though (which even solves multiple classic D&D issues which are still present in 5E!).

I got Worlds/Cities/Stars without Number in a recent charity bundle. I haven't had time to look at all them thoroughly, but I'm interested.

 

[Retreater]

Not to shill too hard, but while Shadowdark has elements in common with OSR games it really is its own thing with its own feel.

I haven't played it and only looked at the Quick Start. To me it's like Domino's Pepperoni Pizza, whereas OSE is Papa John's Pepperoni Pizza, and Labyrinth Lord is Little Caesar's Pepperoni Pizza, and Swords & Wizardry is Pizza Hut's Pepperoni Pizza. Basic Fantasy Roleplay can be Pizza Hut Pepperoni with Sausage. OSRIC is Papa John's Pepperoni with Mushrooms. (Feel free to shift these companies around to suit your preferences of favorite - but basically - similar fast food pizza chains.)
You have the same race/ancestry/lineages that have roughly the same abilities, classes with similar abilities and hit points, the same spells, the same monsters, etc. To me, they're all the same, generic TSR-era games, completely interchangeable. Not to say they're bad. It's just like AC/DC albums - you aren't going to be surprised from any of them.

 

[Reynard]

I haven't played it and only looked at the Quick Start. To me it's like Domino's Pepperoni Pizza, whereas OSE is Papa John's Pepperoni Pizza, and Labyrinth Lord is Little Caesar's Pepperoni Pizza, and Swords & Wizardry is Pizza Hut's Pepperoni Pizza. Basic Fantasy Roleplay can be Pizza Hut Pepperoni with Sausage. OSRIC is Papa John's Pepperoni with Mushrooms. (Feel free to shift these companies around to suit your preferences of favorite - but basically - similar fast food pizza chains.)
You have the same race/ancestry/lineages that have roughly the same abilities, classes with similar abilities and hit points, the same spells, the same monsters, etc. To me, they're all the same, generic TSR-era games, completely interchangeable. Not to say they're bad. It's just like AC/DC albums - you aren't going to be surprised from any of them.

You're free to make whatever assessment you want, but if people who actually play the game tell it isn't just another version of B/X, maybe consider they might know more than you?