Crows Officially Announced by MCDM

MCDM Productions has officially announced Crows, a new dungeon-crawling RPG. The new RPG is being led by James Introcaso, with Nick De Spain directing the art. The game is described as a game about staring death in the face and grabbing as much loot from dungeons before your luck runs out. The game is played using D6s and D10s, with a health system similar to Knave in which inventory slots doubles as a health tracker.

In a Patreon post released today, Introcaso described Crows and its differences from Draw Steel. For one, experience points is determined by calculating the value of loot taken from a dungeon. Crows retains the power roll from Draw Steel but with some differences as to the result of the roll. Unlike Draw Steel, where the power roll always results in some kind of benefit for the player, the power roll in Crows has negative results for low rolls. However, players have no limit to the number of circumstantial bonuses they have in Crows, which can result in higher results with good planning.

Other nuances mentioned in the post include that all players can use any equipment they might find (spellbooks were given as an example), but some character classes will be more attuned to certain kinds of equipment. There's also a base building component to Crows, in which players build up the town they're headquartered in. There will also be a default campaign setting for Crows, described as a world in which Archmages were eventually corrupted by the magic they wielded and became Necromancers who waged war on each other until they all disappeared.

No release date was announced for Crows, but MCDM plans to provide updates on the development of Crows via its various social media platforms.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Sure, but as has been discussed ad nauseum here every time someone asks how they can run a better horror game in D&D, powering up your player characters too much makes horror a lot harder to pull off.

If you build characters getting more powerful into the character design system, rather than into the adventure design, you are all but guaranteeing that some tables will see characters outpacing the threat level of the game, rendering a lot of the horror aspects moot.

If we look at successful horror games like Call of Cthulhu or Mothership, we see the player characters stay weak forever. In contrast, in horror-coded games like the World of Darkness games, it's easy, even in the most horrific editions, for characters to get powerful enough to survive anything other than an adversarial GM, turning the games into the Underworld movies -- fun, but not at all scary.

That said, the MCDM folks are smart designers and I'm sure they've thought about this issue. So we'll see what they come up with.

I think that the issue lies in there being a fundamental difference between a horror game and a Resident Evil-inspired survival horror, and without adressing it, the game is going to be confused about what it actually is. Survival Horror has the thing ou list as a problem build-in as a feature, it rewards progression and mastering the game by making you more powerful, while maintaining the tension either by focusing on the atmosphere and other aspects of horror, and by keeping your character relatively squishy, your intentory at hand limited (while storage units are virtually unlimited) and number of saving spots similairly limited. Limit the number of ways and times PCs can heal and it won't matter how strong they get, they will need to rest and recover. That tension works great in Draw Steel and would be amazing to emulate the dilemma we often face in survival horror - "do I risk progressing now, clearing/exploring one more room? Or do I go back to safe spot, rearm and recover?"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think that the issue lies in there being a fundamental difference between a horror game and a Resident Evil-inspired survival horror, and without adressing it, the game is going to be confused about what it actually is.

Ideally, all RPG design teams would have this level of introspection: "Does the gameplay loop create the experience we want, or is it incentivizing something different instead?"

And yeah, Team MCDM likely has a clear idea of where they fall on this spectrum. Looking forward to more communication from them about their vision for the game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So he's making a Shadowdark clone that uses different dice sizes. Meh.

Yeah, I had a similar reaction: that it's recognizing the appeal of Shadowdark and trying to appeal to that market.

But I'm also pretty intrigued and plan to check it out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just read this in the linked patreon post:

In Crows, the opposite is true. Anyone who has a melt spellbook can attempt to cast the melt spell, but some PCs have bonuses, skills, or traits that allow them to cast the most effective version of the spell while others might be better suited to swinging a sword or using a set of lockpicks. In other words, the character options you take in Crows enhance what your equipment does and not the other way around.

I really do appreciate that design goal: the idea of "class" has always (well, maybe not when I was 14 and playing AD&D) bothered me as too artificial, too constraining. By way of contrast, I like how TOR is designed, where chargen choices nudge you one direction or another, but basically everybody can do anything.

On the other hand, I suspect that players will tend to pigeonhole their characters into certain class-like archetypes anyway. Once you start investing in, say, melee attributes, you start thinking of yourself as a "fighter" and you continue to invest in those attributes/skills/equipment. So class becomes self-defining.

Reading on...

Why design the game this way? Because Crows is about looting dungeons. A player is more incentivized to put their character in harm’s way if not only does the equipment make them more powerful but also expands their character options. Want to expand the number of spells you can cast? Well you better head into a dangerous dungeon so you can find more spellbooks or gather the coins you need to buy what you want.

But isn't that true regardless of whether or not there are classes? At least, I've never seen players in a class-based game say, "Yeah, you know what...it's not worth the risk. What if the only treasure I find is a wand, which I can't use? Better to just sit in the tavern where it's safe."

So, again, I like the flavor, and I like class-less games, but I'm not following the logic of how the game design drives the expected behavior.

I don't mean for this to be overly critical. I still am excited to see this game. Those two paragraphs just struck me as...puzzling.

 

[Reynard]

I just read this in the linked patreon post:


I really do appreciate that design goal: the idea of "class" has always (well, maybe not when I was 14 and playing AD&D) bothered me as too artificial, too constraining. By way of contrast, I like how TOR is designed, where chargen choices nudge you one direction or another, but basically everybody can do anything.

On the other hand, I suspect that players will tend to pigeonhole their characters into certain class-like archetypes anyway. Once you start investing in, say, melee attributes, you start thinking of yourself as a "fighter" and you continue to invest in those attributes/skills/equipment. So class becomes self-defining.

Reading on...


But isn't that true regardless of whether or not there are classes? At least, I've never seen players in a class-based game say, "Yeah, you know what...it's not worth the risk. What if the only treasure I find is a wand, which I can't use? Better to just sit in the tavern where it's safe."

So, again, I like the flavor, and I like class-less games, but I'm not following the logic of how the game design drives the expected behavior.

I don't mean for this to be overly critical. I still am excited to see this game. Those two paragraphs just struck me as...puzzling.

I am not sure I understand your confusion. The system insentivies, not demands. If some theoretical player decides to nerf themselves by not picking up the acid splash spellbook because they think of themselves as a barbarian, well that's player agency I guess.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I am not sure I understand your confusion. The system insentivies, not demands. If some theoretical player decides to nerf themselves by not picking up the acid splash spellbook because they think of themselves as a barbarian, well that's player agency I guess.

Hmm, I didn't explain that well.

First, sure, a martial-focused character might pick up and use the acid splash spellbook. But more likely (except in highly dysfunctional/immature groups?) they would pass it off to the character who would get the most benefit from it. I.e., the "Wizard", even if it's not explicitly called that in a class-less, a la carte design.

Second, the claim in the post seemed to be that characters would be more likely to go adventuring if they could benefit from all and any goodies they found. Except I've never once heard a player say, "You know, if we go to that dungeon we might find loot I can't use, so let's not bother."

Again, I'm not opposed to the general design. I like games like that. I just think the arguments offered in those two paragraphs were odd. There are better arguments.

 

[Staffan]

I just read this in the linked patreon post:

Anyone who has a melt spellbook can attempt to cast the melt spell, but some PCs have bonuses, skills, or traits that allow them to cast the most effective version of the spell while others might be better suited to swinging a sword or using a set of lockpicks. In other words, the character options you take in Crows enhance what your equipment does and not the other way around.

Interesting. This reminds me of Descent and Imperial Assault, where characters' attacks are determined by their gear and where different classes or characters have abilities that synergize with these to a greater or lesser degree. For example, the Runemaster class has abilities that enhance their use of Rune items. There's nothing preventing them from using Weapons to attack instead, but they don't get their skill synergies with them.

 

[Reynard]

Hmm, I didn't explain that well.

First, sure, a martial-focused character might pick up and use the acid splash spellbook. But more likely (except in highly dysfunctional/immature groups?) they would pass it off to the character who would get the most benefit from it. I.e., the "Wizard", even if it's not explicitly called that in a class-less, a la carte design.

Second, the claim in the post seemed to be that characters would be more likely to go adventuring if they could benefit from all and any goodies they found. Except I've never once heard a player say, "You know, if we go to that dungeon we might find loot I can't use, so let's not bother."

Again, I'm not opposed to the general design. I like games like that. I just think the arguments offered in those two paragraphs were odd. There are better arguments.

I think the intent is to make sure there is always something to support One More Room -- which is very much what you want. You want PCs to push as far as they can before deciding to bail. D&D, or even Shadowdark, does not generally do this well because there is often not enough downside to leaving and returning.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the intent is to make sure there is always something to support One More Room -- which is very much what you want. You want PCs to push as far as they can before deciding to bail. D&D, or even Shadowdark, does not generally do this well because there is often not enough downside to leaving and returning.

Interesting. I totally agree with that design goal, but don't understand how class-less design addresses it. Maybe you can help me understand what I'm missing?

The way I do think a classless system could encourage that is avoiding the "Well, our healer is out of spell slots so we may as well go back to town and rest." But that wasn't the argument made.

 

[Reynard]

Interesting. I totally agree with that design goal, but don't understand how class-less design addresses it. Maybe you can help me understand what I'm missing?

The way I do think a classless system could encourage that is avoiding the "Well, our healer is out of spell slots so we may as well go back to town and rest." But that wasn't the argument made.

Again, I am just guessing based on the post, but it sounds like there is supposed to generous gear, and since gear can be utilized by anyone, going "one more room" to get that gear is a viable choice because it might kind of be a boost without a rest, if that makes sense.

Like I said, I am just trying to imagine how it could support its design goal. We won't know until we at least see an alpha of the rules.