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

[darjr]

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

Yea. They all work.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

I have no problem with funding prior to completed design. It can be an effective strategy, and in some cases the only one practically available. However the fact anyone thought this minor change was worthy of an update doesn't give me much faith in the process. And it not only implies the mechanics are in utero, but that the design goals themselves are still a moving target.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

If you didn't want to take a chance on a game they said wasn't finished, all you had to do was wait until it was. There's no grift here. It was all very clear that things would change. Backing the kS for an unfinished game clearly carried risk you wouldn't like what came.

I agree there was no grift. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying there was.

My point is that when a designer says it's open to change, but their first design promise is '[they] want to have no attack rolls'. Promise or idea unveiling. It would be equivalent to me as if Wizards when previewing 3.0 said that a d20 would resolve checks, and then released it as 'No, you roll a d6 per plus you have and make a dice pool'. Some people will feel they were bait-and-switched.

However, I think you're not trying to understand the point anyone is trying to say to you.

 

[Zaukrie]

I agree there was no grift. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying there was.

My point is that when a designer says it's open to change, but their first design promise is '[they] want to have no attack rolls'. Promise or idea unveiling. It would be equivalent to me as if Wizards when previewing 3.0 said that a d20 would resolve checks, and then released it as 'No, you roll a d6 per plus you have and make a dice pool'. Some people will feel they were bait-and-switched.

However, I think you're not trying to understand the point anyone is trying to say to you.

I understand perfectly. Thanks though.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have no problem with funding prior to completed design. It can be an effective strategy, and in some cases the only one practically available. However the fact anyone thought this minor change was worthy of an update doesn't give me much faith in the process. And it not only implies the mechanics are in utero, but that the design goals themselves are still a moving target.

The thing is - while it's probably not a great look to overhaul your core mechanic after speaking so fondly about it - they've been very upfront the whole time that they didn't want anyone other than a very core audience of voluntary Patrons (for this part of the playtest). They folks who have the current playtest packets PAY to be involved! They've said "If you don't want to know how the sausage is made, WAIT until we move to the next Phase".

They're pretty early on in the process, and that they're willing to ditch the core resolution system could be every bit as much a "good thing" (if the one they wanted to try is proving not to be all that great) as it could be a red flag (that they don't know what they're doing). It's more likely the former.

 

[Epizarwin]

I have no problem with funding prior to completed design. It can be an effective strategy, and in some cases the only one practically available. However the fact anyone thought this minor change was worthy of an update doesn't give me much faith in the process. And it not only implies the mechanics are in utero, but that the design goals themselves are still a moving target.

What a strange comment. They didn't make some grand announcement. They made a patreon post which they do sometime multiple times a week and had a stream which is usually weekly. This is just them talking about themselves designing the game.

 

[Epizarwin]

I agree there was no grift. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying there was.

My point is that when a designer says it's open to change, but their first design promise is '[they] want to have no attack rolls'. Promise or idea unveiling. It would be equivalent to me as if Wizards when previewing 3.0 said that a d20 would resolve checks, and then released it as 'No, you roll a d6 per plus you have and make a dice pool'. Some people will feel they were bait-and-switched.

However, I think you're not trying to understand the point anyone is trying to say to you.

The old system had not roll to hit. This new system has no roll to hit. It's simply changing how damage is determined. Instead of it being one to one with the dice it's split into tiers so they can have more dynamic damage values. I can't understand how this could be a bait-and-switch.

 

[mamba]

However the fact anyone thought this minor change was worthy of an update doesn't give me much faith in the process. And it not only implies the mechanics are in utero, but that the design goals themselves are still a moving target.

the goals are clear, the design that reflects them is being worked on. Also not sure how the change can be both so minor it is not worth mentioning and at the same time so big that it brings the goals into question