James Introcaso talks about the Power Roll, a change to the MCDM resolution system.

[Aldarc]

I thought it was pertinent because of your own comparison to Cypher (which honestly started the tangent to begin with). I stated I'm not a fan of Cypher and pointed out that it's not well ranked on these boards either. If it had been compared to Fantasy Flight's Star Wars/Genesys, I might've mentioned how that system doesn't appeal to me either.

Throw your well-trodden shade on the Cypher System elsewhere, please. How about in one of the pertinent threads that you linked?

And I think it's somewhat relevant. MCDM produced some highly regarded 5e-compatible content - just like Monte Cook and crew created some highly regarded D&D-based content back in the day. And I am expressing regret that Monte Cook's studio isn't making stuff that appeals to me - or even the more successful/played RPG systems out today. And I feel that loss. I hope that MCDM doesn't put all their future into a system that I don't like.

Now that's a stretch.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Throw your well-trodden shade on the Cypher System elsewhere, please. How about in one of the pertinent threads that you linked?

I'm enjoying the back-and-forth (legitimately), but aren't we now on a tangent about the tangent?

I'm aware that all the rules are made up and the points don't matter, but what's the goal here?

 

[Willie the Duck]

I’d be more concerned if he weren’t willing to make changes when things aren’t working like they should. Sometimes something works in the small but starts having problems once you start integrating it more completely or try torun full games with it. AFAIK he’s not using another system as a base, so he’s having to find out these problems through iteration.

Yes, continuing with a failed mechanic when it is clear it has failed would be an immediate red flag. Yet things-not-working-out at the basic resolution mechanic level would still be a concern, and worthy of discussion.

Regardless, my statement was made under the notion that a solid primary resolution mechanism was part of the system pitch. It was later clarified that working through this step of the process was part of the experience sold to backers, and my position evolved in response to that. I will add a note to my original post to avoid future confusion.

 

[Retreater]

Still 2d6 but like PBTA you compare it to a reference. Above a 7 you do some damage and some minor effect, 8-10 is more damage and a bigger effect, 11-12 and a lot of damage and a big effect.

Disclaimer: Haven't seen the video - so if someone else has seen it and can clarify, that would be appreciated.

What I dislike about "effect riders" on die results is when they're not codified. This is the case with PbtA, Genesys, and other systems.
It seems to always go like this...
Me: "You get a success and a minor effect. I guess the 'minor effect' is that you stagger the enemy, giving a +1 to the next attack roll."
Player: "Wellllll actually, that is a plus forward effect, which only happens when you roll an 11+."
Me: "Ok, so you tip his helmet and disorient him slightly."
Player: "Welllllllllll actualllllly, that's a negative backward effect, which only happens when the enemy rolls a 4-."

 

[Meech17]

So, what was the new idea they ahve anyway?

I'm not sure. I can't view Twitch at work so I haven't gotten to watch the video. I think the crux of some peoples frustration is

"They originally said there was no to-hit roll! But now there is a to-hit roll!"

I'm not entirely sure if that's what happened however. From what I know of the project the whole goal in removing the to-hit roll was to avoid "wasted turns"

"You move your fighter in front of the Kobold, and swing your sword. You rolled a four, so you miss. Better luck next time. Maybe try coaching your dice while we go around the table."

The classes are all getting 4e style powers. So instead of making a basic attack, you get:

"You move your fighter in front of the Kobold, and use your Inspiring Smash! ability. Ooof you rolled a four. You don't do any damage with the smash, but you still get to inspire one of your comrades. Who are you choosing?"

This is all of course speculation. But I'm guessing the spirit of what they were trying to achieve with the no to-hit roll will likely be preserved. I saw this potentially being an issue. They had talked about having what seemed like a kind of convoluted system of damage vs armor/damage reduction. So its like stacking up all of these plusses versus the opponents negatives. After your tax forms were all filled out you'd get the resulting damage(Or none if it was all deflected somehow.) It seemed like a lot of book keeping that essentially resulted in having to roll to-hit anyway. (Sure you always hit, but if you don't hit well enough to get past your opponents damage reduction, it's kind of a miss, isn't it?)

I don't know. Like I said it's all speculation, and I'd love to see how close I got when I get to watch the video later. If I remember I'll come back and edit this.

 

[darjr]

Hey, he gave you a shout-out! Is your nickname really pronounced "Dahr Junior"? I always call you "Darjher" in my head. But then, I always just read the letters. I would pronounce haskdsfhlasdkfjl (just pounding the keyboard!) as hask-dis-flass-duk-fyull).

Cool!

They are my initials with Jr tacked on. It’s an old tag.

 

[Epizarwin]

Disclaimer: Haven't seen the video - so if someone else has seen it and can clarify, that would be appreciated.

What I dislike about "effect riders" on die results is when they're not codified. This is the case with PbtA, Genesys, and other systems.
It seems to always go like this...
Me: "You get a success and a minor effect. I guess the 'minor effect' is that you stagger the enemy, giving a +1 to the next attack roll."
Player: "Wellllll actually, that is a plus forward effect, which only happens when you roll an 11+."
Me: "Ok, so you tip his helmet and disorient him slightly."
Player: "Welllllllllll actualllllly, that's a negative backward effect, which only happens when the enemy rolls a 4-."

Hey first time poster, long term lurker.

I have to admit I haven't played those games so when I try to think of your example in relation to thebMCDM game it makes no sense. I think it's best if I just try to give some (made up) examples of how the abilities would work.

STAGGERING BLOW
Yada Yada description/target/etc
-7 : 3 damage, push 1
8-10 : 4 damage, push 2
11+ : 5 damage, push 3

So if you roll 2d6 + your might (2) and get 3+4+2 = 9 you would deal 4 damage and push the target 2 squares.

LUCKY STRIKE
Yada Yada description/target/etc
-7 : 3 damage
8-10 : 5 damage
11+ : 11 damage

Just more damage, try to get some edges to pump up your chances.

TERROR CONTAGEON
Yada Yada description/target/etc
-7 : 2 damage, 1 Bane, 1 target
8-10 : 2 damage, 1 Bane, 2 targets
11+ : 4 damage, 2 Bane, 3 targets

Infect more people with banes but has relatively flat damage.


Basically every ability has its own little chart telling you how your power roll translates into kickassery. The goal was to keep the 2d6 which people liked, but have variability in damage output. This also maintains the critical on double 6s. Edges mean you get more d6bto roll and pick the highest so also increases your chance to crit.

Anyway, wrote all of this on my phone and now I have to get this marker off my screen.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Cool!

They are my initials with Jr tacked on. It’s an old tag.

I thought as much! So it's technically Dee Ae Arr Junior, not Dahr Junior or Darjher.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Disclaimer: Haven't seen the video - so if someone else has seen it and can clarify, that would be appreciated.

What I dislike about "effect riders" on die results is when they're not codified. This is the case with PbtA, Genesys, and other systems.
It seems to always go like this...
Me: "You get a success and a minor effect. I guess the 'minor effect' is that you stagger the enemy, giving a +1 to the next attack roll."
Player: "Wellllll actually, that is a plus forward effect, which only happens when you roll an 11+."
Me: "Ok, so you tip his helmet and disorient him slightly."
Player: "Welllllllllll actualllllly, that's a negative backward effect, which only happens when the enemy rolls a 4-."

From what I've seen and read, things are likely to be spelled out a LOT more clearly than that. So we should be fine there.

 

[Retreater]

Hey first time poster, long term lurker.

I have to admit I haven't played those games so when I try to think of your example in relation to thebMCDM game it makes no sense. I think it's best if I just try to give some (made up) examples of how the abilities would work.

Cool. I appreciate the explanation.
It looks like the effects are clearly codified and not up to GM/Narrator/Director discretion - so no complaints from me.
Thanks!