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.

 

[Nightfly]

Chiming in because this tickled my argument buttons, but it can also be because your game is about being heroic that you have to face those sorts of challenges.

First, please bear in mind that I'm paraphrasing these guys. If you'd heard what they said verbatim, it's possible you would have agreed with them more. I hope I'm doing a good job summarizing what they said, but even the best-intentioned people can screw that up.

But also, I respectfully disagree with you. Earlier this year I signed up a Shadowdark adventure that was supposed to be about exploring one of Kelsey's dungeons. Like most SD dungeons, it was fairly short, and given how quick and loose Shadowdark is, I thought the adventure might take about five hours. Alas, no -- after five hours we had not even entered that dungeon. We wasted so much time on less fun stuff, which was not what I had signed up for, that I got bored and dropped out.

Keeping that in mind, I'm with Matt. If you want to run a gritty survival hex crawl, then do that. If you don't, don't. Neither path is wrong, but it's bad to promise players A and deliver a bunch of B. Sometimes you should do what Gygax did in Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and just plop the players right in front of the cool thing the adventure is named after.

 

[Emberashh]

I feel like you're maybe on the precipice of just starting to use "heroic" to mean real-world "heroism" (i.e. 127 Hours, climbing Everest without oxygen, etc.) not what's meant here by "heroic".

That is what I'm using it as, and is central to why that lightly pushed a button. I didn't really want to open up another can of worms on the subject of genre emulation but I may as well note that I don't consider their reasoning (as listed where Heroic is defined relative to them) to be all that sound.

In movies you don't (always) see these things because a movie has a time constraint it has to adhere to, and often the specific fixed narrative being told simply doesn't necessitate significant screen time be devoted to these things, and even where it is, what gets evoked by these scenes doesn't necessitate a lot of screen time.

I find genre emulation, which the Heroic definition implies is a lot of whats supposed to be happening, tends to miss why movies are like that and never questions if that reasoning applies to a game, and if it does, if it does so in the same way or to the same degree.

In games, we aren't merely a passive audience. Games are interactive, and so as players there's fundamentally a lot more time we directly spend with more "minutia" in a given depiction than we'd see in a film, a book, or a comic. Its just a part of what makes them interactive; through whatever actions the game permits, we need to be able to interact with the "gameworld" as presented, whether thats a chess board or an elaborate fantasy world, otherwise we're not really playing anything.

This doesn't mean that certain things, like having to eat or dealing with a light source or what have you have to be meticulous or take up disproportionate playtime, but it also means we do sacrifice the games potential for interactivity by too heavily abstracting or eliminating these elements.

Most RPGs that had these rules didn't really get that, and there's not very many games out there that try to do those ideas differently, especially given so many are just perpetuating the use of the same exact rulesets.

But anyway, where I get pushed is when the term "Heroic" is used in a way that precludes other interpretations, such as the one I noted where overcoming challenges is Heroic (which, fwiw, is a more intuitive use of the word), rather than the more nebulous interpretation where Heroic seems to be a stand-in for abstracted, or even just plain absent, and doesn't really have much to do with any notion of heroism.

I think they'd have been better off just combining the Heroic and Cinematic sections together and skipping the Heroic description, as Cinematic I feel is more accurate to what they're trying to say.

(Which I'd still take issue with as much of what I've seen so far is still just 4e and 4e doesn't at all scream cinematic, but thats neither here nor there. If it stays as is through to release then it should be good fun because 4e was fun)

Plus, Id say its a bit of a trap they're setting for themselves by relegating these ideas to specific adventures. If 5e has shown us all anything, its that what you make a part of the Core rules is what the game is about, and anything superflous to that is going to be lacking.

5e for example ostensibly assumes a Hex crawl for much of whats left of its Exploration pillar, but you can only really tell if you deep dive and cross examine the system with its older playtest iterations. For most people, 5e basically doesn't have an exploration pillar, and adventures like Tomb of Annihilation don't really change that (or indeed are even criticized precisely because it doesn't blend well with the base game).

So MCDMRPG is going to have the same issue, as I'd take a guess and assume they aren't going to put extensive effort into what would basically be a Rules expansion, if its to actually be at the same quality as the base game and designed to integrate, just to sell an Adventure. Basically nobody does things this way, and I don't see them doing it either.

Presumably given those initial blurbs it won't be as bad as 5e, where it talks up Exploration as though its supposed to be there when it isn't, but its still going to cause a lot of the same dynamics.

 

[Emberashh]

First, please bear in mind that I'm paraphrasing these guys. If you'd heard what they said verbatim, it's possible you would have agreed with them more. I hope I'm doing a good job summarizing what they said, but even the best-intentioned people can screw that up.

Thats fair, and from my reading I don't believe any wires got crossed. If I cared to go into the backerkit page and read it first I'd have had the same thought when I got to the relevant parts.

Like most SD dungeons, it was fairly short, and given how quick and loose Shadowdark is, I thought the adventure might take about five hours. Alas, no -- after five hours we had not even entered that dungeon. We wasted so much time on less fun stuff, which was not what I had signed up for, that I got bored and dropped out.

I don't think that was Shadowdarks fault. Could have been an adventure design issue, though without knowing the specific adventure its hard to say. I could easily see a GM or even the GM + other players basically forgetting why they're there and getting lost in the game.

For me I'd actually see that as a rousing success given I'm a sandbox person, but yeah, if the point was to run a specific adventure/dungeon, something went screwy if you spent 5 hours in-game and didn't even get started. Whether or not thats the adventure itself or the other players just depends. But Shadowdark itself wouldn't have caused that. Its way too light for that to just be 5 hours of system driven minutia.

 

[SteveC]

But also, I respectfully disagree with you. Earlier this year I signed up a Shadowdark adventure that was supposed to be about exploring one of Kelsey's dungeons. Like most SD dungeons, it was fairly short, and given how quick and loose Shadowdark is, I thought the adventure might take about five hours. Alas, no -- after five hours we had not even entered that dungeon. We wasted so much time on less fun stuff, which was not what I had signed up for, that I got bored and dropped out.

I have been there and feel this so much! I think the biggest thing you can do sometimes with a game is talk about what it's not, and Matt has been very clear here. In today's video he mentioned the old days where you were directed to "Outdoor Survival" for that kind of game. If I'm playing a dungeon crawl game with strong mechanics in that line, that's what I want to do.

And in a similar light, Matt has said his game isn't going to be the dungeon crawler that Shadowdark is, so I think it's pretty clear what you're getting on the tin.

 

[Nightfly]

I don't think that was Shadowdarks fault.

Definitely not, and I hope I didn't imply that it was. Shadowdark is a cool system. I'm guessing my DM had certain preconceptions about how an adventure "should" be run which perhaps didn't fit with the roll-and-go philosophy of Shadowdark.

It depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell. Sometimes you want the Village of Hommlet at the start, and sometimes you want to begin with "So you're at the entrance to the dungeon..."

 

[darjr]

I have been there and feel this so much! I think the biggest thing you can do sometimes with a game is talk about what it's not, and Matt has been very clear here. In today's video he mentioned the old days where you were directed to "Outdoor Survival" for that kind of game. If I'm playing a dungeon crawl game with strong mechanics in that line, that's what I want to do.

And in a similar light, Matt has said his game isn't going to be the dungeon crawler that Shadowdark is, so I think it's pretty clear what you're getting on the tin.

I think his point was good but just to be pedantic you only needed “Outdoor Survival” for the board not the rules.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That is what I'm using it as, and is central to why that lightly pushed a button. I didn't really want to open up another can of worms on the subject of genre emulation but I may as well note that I don't consider their reasoning (as listed where Heroic is defined relative to them) to be all that sound.

In movies you don't (always) see these things because a movie has a time constraint it has to adhere to, and often the specific fixed narrative being told simply doesn't necessitate significant screen time be devoted to these things, and even where it is, what gets evoked by these scenes doesn't necessitate a lot of screen time.

I find genre emulation, which the Heroic definition implies is a lot of whats supposed to be happening, tends to miss why movies are like that and never questions if that reasoning applies to a game, and if it does, if it does so in the same way or to the same degree.

In games, we aren't merely a passive audience. Games are interactive, and so as players there's fundamentally a lot more time we directly spend with more "minutia" in a given depiction than we'd see in a film, a book, or a comic. Its just a part of what makes them interactive; through whatever actions the game permits, we need to be able to interact with the "gameworld" as presented, whether thats a chess board or an elaborate fantasy world, otherwise we're not really playing anything.

This doesn't mean that certain things, like having to eat or dealing with a light source or what have you have to be meticulous or take up disproportionate playtime, but it also means we do sacrifice the games potential for interactivity by too heavily abstracting or eliminating these elements.

Most RPGs that had these rules didn't really get that, and there's not very many games out there that try to do those ideas differently, especially given so many are just perpetuating the use of the same exact rulesets.

But anyway, where I get pushed is when the term "Heroic" is used in a way that precludes other interpretations, such as the one I noted where overcoming challenges is Heroic (which, fwiw, is a more intuitive use of the word), rather than the more nebulous interpretation where Heroic seems to be a stand-in for abstracted, or even just plain absent, and doesn't really have much to do with any notion of heroism.

I think they'd have been better off just combining the Heroic and Cinematic sections together and skipping the Heroic description, as Cinematic I feel is more accurate to what they're trying to say.

(Which I'd still take issue with as much of what I've seen so far is still just 4e and 4e doesn't at all scream cinematic, but thats neither here nor there. If it stays as is through to release then it should be good fun because 4e was fun)

Plus, Id say its a bit of a trap they're setting for themselves by relegating these ideas to specific adventures. If 5e has shown us all anything, its that what you make a part of the Core rules is what the game is about, and anything superflous to that is going to be lacking.

5e for example ostensibly assumes a Hex crawl for much of whats left of its Exploration pillar, but you can only really tell if you deep dive and cross examine the system with its older playtest iterations. For most people, 5e basically doesn't have an exploration pillar, and adventures like Tomb of Annihilation don't really change that (or indeed are even criticized precisely because it doesn't blend well with the base game).

So MCDMRPG is going to have the same issue, as I'd take a guess and assume they aren't going to put extensive effort into what would basically be a Rules expansion, if its to actually be at the same quality as the base game and designed to integrate, just to sell an Adventure. Basically nobody does things this way, and I don't see them doing it either.

Presumably given those initial blurbs it won't be as bad as 5e, where it talks up Exploration as though its supposed to be there when it isn't, but its still going to cause a lot of the same dynamics.

I mean if you fundamentally don't accept the premise of a game, then you almost certainly shouldn't be playing that game. There are a number of TT RPGs where I fundamentally don't accept the premise - the easiest example for me being Castle Falkenstein. As an adult I just avoid them (as a teenager it felt a little more complicated, but really, I don't think it was lol).

My experience of 4E was that it was extremely cinematic relative to all other forms of D&D, and particularly the finickity and actively anti-cinematic 3E.

 

[Emberashh]

I mean if you fundamentally don't accept the premise of a game, then you almost certainly shouldn't be playing that game.

I don't take issue with 4e with the serial numbers filed off As it stands if the game released as is I wouldn't have any issues playing it.

We're just talking about petty peripherals to that that I don't believe tracks with their intentions; marketing that I don't think is really accurate essentially.

My experience of 4E was that it was extremely cinematic relative to all other forms of D&D, and particularly the finickity and actively anti-cinematic 3E

I imagine we have significantly different interpretations of cinematic then. (To be clear, I don't think any iteration of DND achieved something that could be qualified as cinematic)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't take issue with 4e with the serial numbers filed off

But we're not talking about Lancer, we're talking about MCDM!

Jokes aside, by that logic, Shadowdark is 5E with the serial numbers filed off. Seriously. The number of mechanical differences between 5E and Shadowdark is considerably smaller than what we're looking at with MCDM's RPG, which isn't even a d20 mechanic game. I feel like you maybe haven't actually gone through the actual page and clicked on and read through the example material. You seemed to be claiming you had, but comments like this make it seem like you really haven't.

I imagine we have significantly different interpretations of cinematic then. (To be clear, I don't think any iteration of DND achieved something that could be qualified as cinematic)

My interpretation of cinematic definitely aligns with how it's been used in RPG design as a whole, so...

It seems like you're continuing to attack the premise which again, I would suggest means you probably shouldn't be playing that game. You haven't made any particularly cogent criticisms, you're just saying "Well I don't think that's what Heroic means!", and it's like dude, they extensively defined what they meant by Heroic and Cinematic, and you don't even seem to be engaging with those definitions in your commentary.

 

[Panzeh]

This doesn't mean that certain things, like having to eat or dealing with a light source or what have you have to be meticulous or take up disproportionate playtime, but it also means we do sacrifice the games potential for interactivity by too heavily abstracting or eliminating these elements.

They don't necessarily have to be, but i've found in general that almost every campaign i've been in that starts with that ditches it pretty quickly because it's a fairly trivial challenge if you have a player who's good at planning things, and a massive annoyance if you don't. I get the possibilities for interesting drama that comes from it, but RPG players can just choose to pack plenty of rations, lanterns, etc and then there's really no drama from it, and it's mostly a yes/no thing, and on the 'you didn't' side of things, the players feel like it's arbitrary because they didn't have a logistician player trivialize it.