Draw Steel the MCDM RPG!

[Ruin Explorer]

Does the world need another RPG? I don't think so.

You don't know what you're talking about, frankly. That's a profoundly rubbish opinion that MC himself would and has strongly disagreed with. What a truly fatuous thing to say, honestly.

I'm not sure where you get the idea where this is about fitting a niche that isn't currently being served as a part of the RPG community ... I doubt very much that the game will do something there isn't some variation on.

Yeah I can tell, because you haven't even described an RPG yet!

You've said we don't need more RPGs, then you talked about settings, not RPGs, twice. You said you didn't like generic medieval fantasy settings, and that you did want a 1970s space fantasy setting (of which there are, in fact, several already, I note - it's not a genre that nothing exists in!).

You seem to be totally confusing the whole concept of an RPG mechanically with that of a setting. I don't know how to help you there. They can be married together and often are, but they don't have to be. And it can be a real killer for a good set of mechanics to be hard-married to bad setting. Vice-versa happens more often, but it's usually easier (though not always easy) to deal with.

The entire raison d'etre for MCDM/Draw Steel!, the stated reasoning, the stated goal, was to make a Heroic and Tactical RPG, just 4E but without the rubbish elements of 4E's design (albeit he seems to be sneaking some in via the back door via Titles and Perks, which could potentially proliferate the way Feats did). None of that had to do with the setting, and indeed, when talking about the setting, he'd basically described it in Elric-esque terms, which would have been slightly wack but fine. There was no "Oh this'll have a wack-ass space fantasy setting welded to it btw!" (prog rock I can accept - Moorcock was in Hawkwind after all, though, as I remember a rock-scene girl in my class telling me in about 1994, "They really suck. Bad."), and I feel like enthusiasm for the project would have been hugely lower, like millions of dollars lower, had it not been presented as approximately a "4E but good" mouldable fantasy RPG.

Would anyone care about this game if Matt wasn't associated with it?

Immaterial. We're talking about what makes for a better game here, not what gets someone off - and MC, for all his faults and weird elitism about media (but less so about RPGs, interestingly), is not the sort of egotist who needs a game to be exactly what he wanted and not what works.

He is, however, given to flights of fancy and wild ideas that can sometimes be incredibly valuable, and sometimes be absolute dead ends.

Now might the game be better without some of the weird 70s sci-fi era stuff? Maybe.

Precisely.

But if Matt isn't as excited about it, he doesn't drag as many people along with him.

Nobody needs dragging except maybe MC at this point! The rest of the team have talked about how the game is very close to done, and they expect to finalize the rules early next year (c.f. the interview with James Introcaso @darjr posted). If even if MC hid in a basement angrily listening to forgotten '80s rock bands on his probably-amazing amp and speakers for the next year, this game would get finished. The hard part is already done (at least according to Introcaso).

As you say though, it may get fixed. I'm just skeptical.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Many of the Patreon entries are literally written by other team members

How is that relevant to anything I'm saying? How would I know any of that?

 

[SteveC]

You don't know what you're talking about, frankly. That's a profoundly rubbish opinion that MC himself would and has strongly disagreed with. What a truly fatuous thing to say, honestly.

I just have to say that you say a lot of egotistical stuff from time to time but congratulations! This takes the cake. As if to imply that disagreeing with you is anything more than disagreeing with a random person. Wow.

As someone making an RPG, I'll double down: the world doesn't need more RPGs. It does (or may) need the RPG that I, or Matt, or anyone else makes. As a writer, you don't write because the world needs anything that you have to say. It's necessary because you need to say it. And somewhere, people may read it, or maybe not. But it needed to be said.

As someone who supports people in the industry and making their games come to life, I want to do this because I want their voices to be heard. Not because there's going to be a new way of resolving initiative.

I am very very happy to no longer be an Internet Warrior because that's all I have to say to you on this.

 

[tetrasodium]

Going to interrupt Ruin Explorer 's complaints & One Tue Wayism with this

 

[mamba]

I don't think I can disagree with this more. Does the world need another RPG? I don't think so.

then don’t buy any more RPGs, simple. There are plenty new ones each year, we even just got a revision of D&D, so not sure why you are singling out Matt’s game

 

[SteveC]

then don’t buy any more RPGs, simple. There are plenty new ones each year, we even just got a revision of D&D, so not sure why you are singling out Matt’s game

I think you're missing my point. Between different sites that sell RPGs, I've backed over 20 new RPGs this year. I've backed Matt's and I'm very excited about it. I regularly talk game design with people who design games or are getting into the design. Somehow you are thinking that I don't think there should be more games. Far from it!

Do I need more dice? Well, each time I go to a gaming convention I seem to get some more of them. A friend and I pick up a copy of a game we've never heard of and run a one-shot of it in similar fashion.

I taught a class on creative writing and there were a lot of people who were very unsure of whether or not anyone would want to read what they wrote. I told them that isn't why you're writing. You write a story because it's inside you and needs to be said. Same with a sonnet or an 10 book series of novels that take you years to finish: you write because the story is in you and needs to be shared.

I'm currently involved with a thread about designing a game (taking a break from it as it's gotten very dense) but a number of people have mentioned the idea that when you design a game, there's nothing new under the sun. That 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't design a game. I think a big part of the reason Draw Steel will interest people is because of all the quirky stuff that's part of the game. That's the unique part.

The different levels of success from the Power Roll? They are very PbtA/FitD inspired. That doesn't mean the game won't have really interesting rules (especially since I also like 4E...) but you have to take the rules, the way they're presented, and the setting together to make the game. And that, I feel pretty strongly about, is 100% unique.

If the sticking point of this conversation is that I claim the world doesn't need new games, take that in light of the fact that I've backed a ton of them in the last few years, even if they weren't my thing, because I thought the writer had something interesting to say. I think just because the world doesn't need something, it also doesn't mean that I don't, or that the person making it should be discouraged.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If the sticking point of this conversation is that I claim the world doesn't need new games, take that in light of the fact that I've backed a ton of them in the last few years, even if they weren't my thing, because I thought the writer had something interesting to say. I think just because the world doesn't need something, it also doesn't mean that I don't, or that the person making it should be discouraged.

So what are you even saying? It seems given this context that your position was one of airy rhetoric and the exact sort of disingenuous "internet warrior" stuff you're disowning.

It does (or may) need the RPG that I, or Matt, or anyone else makes.

This is literally meaningless in the most straightforward sense - because it'll need it equally by that logic regardless of whether it's changed in the way I describe. Do you even disagree?

I notice you've avoided addressing the point that you seemed to be treating RPGs solely as settings, but I think I see what's going on there.

I think a big part of the reason Draw Steel will interest people is because of all the quirky stuff that's part of the game. That's the unique part.

The funding campaign focused very much on the goals of the game, and the game design re: the rules elements. It's But you seem to aggressively sneering at those:

Not because there's going to be a new way of resolving initiative.

Why is a new way of resolving initiative not worthy of respect? Why isn't it "needed" in the same way as setting element? Why does it not have the same artistic/creative merit as the setting elements you're praising as unique? Why in general do you value the "unique" setting elements (which aren't actually unique btw, there are other games with similar setting elements) and not the equally "unique" rules design elements?

You talk about ego, but it looks like your entire position here is "people will only care about the things I like and value", which is... interesting.

Frankly, given how much the game design has been the focus of development here, it's rather bizarre that you're dismissing it seemingly out of hand. It's all very well trying to say it's the combination of presentation, rules, and setting that's unique, but I've been playing RPGs for 35 years now and I don't think that's as meaningful as you think it is - I think it's an obvious truism that doesn't mean a lot. Good rules-sets and rules-sets that do certain things, and do it well, and are playtested are not necessarily common. Ones pursuing the goals Draw Steel! is are extremely rare. The only other major one is Lancer (there are a lot of minor ones and unfinished ones, but they tend to have a lot of issues).

 

[Umbran]

You don't know what you're talking about, frankly.

Mod Note:
Rude.
Very rude.
You're done in this thread. Treat people better.

 

[SteveC]

As far as the video on classes goes (thanks for posting!) I really like the Troubador. When I think about this at the same time as Matt's recent video about how the game was played very early on, it's really interesting. I like the idea of a character who realizes "all the world's a stage" but I'm not sure it will be for everyone. It's sort of shifting the stance of the player a bit.

But I have found my class of choice (along with the Tactician, which I believe is the "warlord like" class). Thanks for posting!