MCDM starts work on its RPG Monday!


log in or register to remove this ad


Jaeger

That someone better
Note he says it isn’t going to be his fantasy heartbreaker but a designed game for his audience and developers.
Tactical and cinematic but not a heartbreaker. Not Matt's dream project. Collaboratively designed game by their team.

So a Fantasy Heartbreaker by committee then.

Totally different. ROTFL.:ROFLMAO:

That being said I'm actually looking forward to the glut of fantasy heartbreakers coming out in the next few years.

There should be some good D&D alternatives in there.

Somewhere.


As an example...

Success/failure. Roll 1d10, succeed on a 5+.

Advantage/threat. Roll 1d6-1d6. A positive result is Advantage; a negative result is Threat.

Triumph. Roll 1d4-1. A non-zero result is counted as Triumph.

Disaster. Roll 1d4-1. A non-zero result is counted as Disaster.

A dice pool system with five normal dice. Chances are good if you're on this site you already have enough dice to use this system. I literally have the dice to do this sitting on my desk. As long as the d6s and d4s are different colors, you can make one roll and know without much work the same things you could with several sets of custom dice that you'll have to learn the symbols for and translate into a result.

I really hope Matt's team talks him down from specialty dice. But, even if they don't, I'll still check it out.

Best counterargument against funky dice I've seen.

Snipped, and Thank you.
 


Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
So a Fantasy Heartbreaker by committee then.

Totally different. ROTFL.:ROFLMAO:

That being said I'm actually looking forward to the glut of fantasy heartbreakers coming out in the next few years.

There should be some good D&D alternatives in there.

Somewhere.
There are some great ones out there already. I'm going to be rotating through them as side games for my group starting this weekend. And a lot of them are on deep discount right now, both to attract new players and because some publishers are afraid this is their last hurrah. It's a good time to test some out.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I have been looking for an excuse to drop 5E for years, I now realize, and the OGL kerfuffle has provided the perfect opportunity.
Yeah, it really is. I’ve always been a try different systems type but this has pushed a lot of D&D-only people into finally giving other games a chance. I hope it lasts.
There are some great ones out there already. I'm going to be rotating through them as side games for my group starting this weekend. And a lot of them are on deep discount right now, both to attract new players and because some publishers are afraid this is their last hurrah. It's a good time to test some out.
Here’s to hoping not too many publisher fold because of this. It’s inevitable some will, unfortunately.
 

That's fantastic news. Big sigh of relief.

You should check out his Tuesday stream. He may have reverse course because he said can't get the kind of results he wants without funky dice. He's meaning more like FFG dice or Genesys dice, not merely dice that are easily mapped to a normal scheme.

As he describes it, the problem is inherent to how traditional dice are swingy. The d8, his example, has one face with one value, and another face with a value 8 times the value of the first, and both results are equally likely. The fact that sometimes a sword does 1 damage and sometimes it does 8 means you have to build in a lot of numeric padding. Since he's trying to build a game where irrelevant things don't even happen (hence, no to-hit rolls) or at least not with the dice, it's difficult to design around. I see where he's coming from.

However, he does say that he's going to do as much as he possibly can to make the dice freely available, including freely available 3d printed plans or maybe a dice app.
 

You should check out his Tuesday stream. He may have reverse course because he said can't get the kind of results he wants without funky dice. He's meaning more like FFG dice or Genesys dice, not merely dice that are easily mapped to a normal scheme.

sickos-sicko.gif
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
You should check out his Tuesday stream. He may have reverse course because he said can't get the kind of results he wants without funky dice. He's meaning more like FFG dice or Genesys dice, not merely dice that are easily mapped to a normal scheme.

As he describes it, the problem is inherent to how traditional dice are swingy. The d8, his example, has one face with one value, and another face with a value 8 times the value of the first, and both results are equally likely. The fact that sometimes a sword does 1 damage and sometimes it does 8 means you have to build in a lot of numeric padding. Since he's trying to build a game where irrelevant things don't even happen (hence, no to-hit rolls) or at least not with the dice, it's difficult to design around. I see where he's coming from.

However, he does say that he's going to do as much as he possibly can to make the dice freely available, including freely available 3d printed plans or maybe a dice app.
I like the randomness of damage. I'd be good with not rolling to hit, but I don't want to play chess.
 

SakanaSensei

Adventurer
I like the randomness of damage. I'd be good with not rolling to hit, but I don't want to play chess.
You still (likely, the whole game is up in the air) roll dice. Your d8 just might have:
1 damage
1 damage
2 damage
1 damage
1 "surge "(that abilities, items, etc. might trigger from)
2 surge
1 crit (which they've mentioned might give you up to 1 additional action a round),
1 crit 1 surge

as faces. Because the designers get that more minute control, you don't have problems coming up of "this round I was a whole 1/8th as effective as last round."
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
You should check out his Tuesday stream. He may have reverse course because he said can't get the kind of results he wants without funky dice.
Yeah, he said so explicitly on the Friday night stream. Oh well.
He's meaning more like FFG dice or Genesys dice, not merely dice that are easily mapped to a normal scheme.
We already did that bit earlier in the thread. No point repeating it.

Oddly, Matt did say something about having big news about the game but it's too early to say. Not sure what that could be at this point. It's not even to a stable idea document. As he was streaming and talking about it he opened a document and was surprised by additional dice James added and changing faces, etc. Only thing I could think of is a pledge from Critical Role to do a one-shot or have Colville come in and run a one shot once the game is ready to go. Can't imagine a better bit of publicity. But that's pure speculation on my part.

He was also mum about the OGL and CC announcement today.
 

Yeah, he said so explicitly on the Friday night stream. Oh well.

We already did that bit earlier in the thread. No point repeating it.

Well, I just meant that Matt had specifically been clear in the Tuesday stream that he meant that style.

Oddly, Matt did say something about having big news about the game but it's too early to say. Not sure what that could be at this point. It's not even to a stable idea document. As he was streaming and talking about it he opened a document and was surprised by additional dice James added and changing faces, etc.

That sounds like Matt. He gets excited to talk about things, but has enough sense to check himself. Usually. It could be anything from a new artist, an agreement to do models, new designer, etc.

He was also mum about the OGL and CC announcement today.

That also sounds like Matt. It's already too late for him and his team. They're making their own thing, and "the Seattle company's" products are really not what Matt has cared about for a long time. His content is mostly edition-agnostic (excepting classes and monster blocks). K&W and S&F are basically game-agnostic, too. The amount of actual content for actually just 5e is really small.

Besides, CC is good news... for WotC's content for 3e and 5e. It tells us nothing about OneDND.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Well, I just meant that Matt had specifically been clear in the Tuesday stream that he meant that style.
Right. And there was already a discussion about how it's a false dichotomy. You absolutely can generate results along several axes with the standard set of dice. Going with specialty funky dice is absolutely a choice. It's their game so it's their choice. But it's still a choice, it is in no way necessary. "We want to generate results along several axes, therefore we have to use specialty funky dice." Nope. That's false.
That sounds like Matt. He gets excited to talk about things, but has enough sense to check himself. Usually. It could be anything from a new artist, an agreement to do models, new designer, etc.
Absolutely. I just didn't see any point to not talking about an artist signing on or models or a designer etc. No reason to keep that a secret, really. "We're in talks with X, that's exciting..." six months later... "Well, talks with X didn't go well, their schedule filled up before we could secure their time. Too bad. Maybe next time."
His content is mostly edition-agnostic (excepting classes and monster blocks). K&W and S&F are basically game-agnostic, too. The amount of actual content for actually just 5e is really small.
I can't agree with you there. Sorry.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Right. And there was already a discussion about how it's a false dichotomy. You absolutely can generate results along several axes with the standard set of dice. Going with specialty funky dice is absolutely a choice. It's their game so it's their choice. But it's still a choice, it is in no way necessary. "We want to generate results along several axes, therefore we have to use specialty funky dice." Nope. That's false.
You're generating fully independent axies. that's NOT what I want.
I want semi-independent not totally independent results. Jay Little apparently did, too...

The odds of double-extremes are much reduced by the non-numeric results system.

There are several design space elements about dice:
  1. numbers of dice needed
  2. boolean or quantitative result space (in other words, does margin of success/failure matter?)
  3. intrinsic math needs
  4. for multi-axis results, interdependence
    1. Mathmatical interdependence (such as cancellation)
    2. appearance interdependence (such as putting different result space axises on different dice or on the same die.
Your approach achieves vaguely similar results, but provides a much wider result space, and with fewer dice, and without the much reduced occurrence of both axises high or both low. further, it lacks the direct ease of Ability X gives y dice of z color adjusting both axises at once.

See, the green die...
2/8 faces have 1s
1/8 has 2s
2/8 have 1a
1/8 has 2a.
1/8 has 1s & 1a
1/8 is blank

This gives a range of outcomes on a single die of..
0a1a2a
0s1/82/81/8
1s2/81/80/8
2s1/80/80/8

Whereas, if we put them on separate dice, with similar odds (4/3/1) - 4/8 blank, 3/8 1x, 1/8 2x
0a1a2a
0s16/6412/644/64
1s12/649/643/64
2s4/643/641/64
It's not mathematically equivalent, the range is the same on either axis, but the dead zones of semi-independence are important.

The peak results on, say, 3 green...
SW green: (6s 0a ) (4s 2a) (2s 4a) (0s 6a)
This interdependence is a good thing for story. Especially in combat with autofire weapons. You don't get 6+base damage on 3 targets... you get a good hit on one, a moderate on two, a not very good on 3, and a I missed but good stuff happened anyway.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
You're generating fully independent axies. that's NOT what I want.
I want semi-independent not totally independent results. Jay Little apparently did, too...

The odds of double-extremes are much reduced by the non-numeric results system.

There are several design space elements about dice:
  1. numbers of dice needed
  2. boolean or quantitative result space (in other words, does margin of success/failure matter?)
  3. intrinsic math needs
  4. for multi-axis results, interdependence
    1. Mathmatical interdependence (such as cancellation)
    2. appearance interdependence (such as putting different result space axises on different dice or on the same die.
Your approach achieves vaguely similar results, but provides a much wider result space, and with fewer dice, and without the much reduced occurrence of both axises high or both low. further, it lacks the direct ease of Ability X gives y dice of z color adjusting both axises at once.

See, the green die...
2/8 faces have 1s
1/8 has 2s
2/8 have 1a
1/8 has 2a.
1/8 has 1s & 1a
1/8 is blank

This gives a range of outcomes on a single die of..
0a1a2a
0s1/82/81/8
1s2/81/80/8
2s1/80/80/8

Whereas, if we put them on separate dice, with similar odds (4/3/1) - 4/8 blank, 3/8 1x, 1/8 2x
0a1a2a
0s16/6412/644/64
1s12/649/643/64
2s4/643/641/64
It's not mathematically equivalent, the range is the same on either axis, but the dead zones of semi-independence are important.

The peak results on, say, 3 green...
SW green: (6s 0a ) (4s 2a) (2s 4a) (0s 6a)
This interdependence is a good thing for story. Especially in combat with autofire weapons. You don't get 6+base damage on 3 targets... you get a good hit on one, a moderate on two, a not very good on 3, and a I missed but good stuff happened anyway.
Yes, if you decide before you start designing the game that it has to have specialty funky dice then you’ll find ways to design with that in mind.

You’ll lean into that concept and find things “only” specialty funky dice can do. It’s still a choice you’re making. Not something you have to do.

You can design a game with normal funky dice that has interdependent results. You just ignore that and start from “we have to have special funky dice”.

To each their own. You dig ’em, I hate ’em.
 

Staffan

Legend
Right. And there was already a discussion about how it's a false dichotomy. You absolutely can generate results along several axes with the standard set of dice. Going with specialty funky dice is absolutely a choice. It's their game so it's their choice. But it's still a choice, it is in no way necessary. "We want to generate results along several axes, therefore we have to use specialty funky dice." Nope. That's false.
It's a lot easier with funky dice though. I mean, you could do something like "4+ is a success, and an odd roll is an advantage" (to use the terms Star Wars/Geneys uses), which would give a 1/6 chance of nothing, 2/6 one advantage, 2/6 one success, and 1/6 advantage and success. But that's complex, and hard to scale up to different sorts of dice, compared to just looking at the dice and count the symbols.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top