MCDM Update: The Power Roll

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
MCDM continues to be the only RPG company I can think of that is this transparent and honest when it comes to their design decisions, something that it'd be great if it became more widespread in the industry.
I take it you haven't seen their OGL statement in their books? They let down the side there.

TLDR; we get to use previously created Open Game Content, but our mechanics? Naw, that's all product identity.

They're not alone in this. Goodman, Monte Cook do it too. Becoming less relevant as they cease to use the OGL, but still most definitely, not cool or honest.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You've been told in other threads already that the Kickstarter campaign was (1) very open with the fact that funding would be for development of the game (ie, actually making it, then playtesting, revising, and so on) and (2) this is how Kickstarters work, generally. At this point, one must assume your posts like this are trolling, intended merely to stir up ill will.
I think most Kickstarters I've backed say they have a nearly complete product that usually comes with a Quickstart of rules. They need the money for layout, additional art and printing/shipping, but I also don't back a ton (my backlog of reading is SO long!). Is this other people's opinions of RPG Kickstarters?

You're right that they were upfront and transparent. It's why I didn't sign up. But I can see how this model would bother someone who signed up for a cooler, modern D&D 4e and is bothered when they change core mechanics to things they don't like. But I really don't like how Kickstarter is the business model - its pretty anti-consumer in how much risk they are taking. Especially for many companies who are big enough to do the traditional model. I know I am feeling annoyed about my Kickstarters with Blacklist Miniatures disastrous Kickstarters.

All that said, if they end up finding a way to have fast, tactical combat that uses my preferred tiers of successes from PbtA then this could replace Heart as my favorite high powered fantasy heroes. I right now don't believe there is a good middle ground between fast and tactical and you need one or the other. But I am excited if they can pull it off because it solves a lot of my issues where combats rely on the GM to be interesting in narrative games. And in tactical games where the system shines, 70% to sometimes 100% of our precious 3-hours a week is spent on just like 2-4 combats.
 

mamba

Legend
You're right that they were upfront and transparent. It's why I didn't sign up. But I can see how this model would bother someone who signed up for a cooler, modern D&D 4e and is bothered when they change core mechanics to things they don't like.
given that they were transparent and basically had no close to final core design that they said they would be using, changes are to be expected. If that bothers you, then do not back it, just like they told you not to...

I also am not sure where the 'D&D 4e variant' thing comes from, nothing they ever said or any rules they discussed would fall into that category
 

given that they were transparent and basically had no close to final core design that they said they would be using, changes are to be expected. If that bothers you, then do not back it, just like they told you not to...

I also am not sure where the 'D&D 4e variant' thing comes from, nothing they ever said or any rules they discussed would fall into that category
I mean the other thing than just silently not supporting something is to publicly shame it. And I think its a business model that deserves to be publicly shamed which I am doing here. I think normalizing it is a serious issue of the trends of anti consumer and anti worker righters we have had over the last 5 decades.

So I am not okay with just don't back it.
 

Epizarwin

Explorer
Overall I like this system, but I worry about the need for every player needing tables.

Matt mentions in the video that over time you'll learn what your skills do, and probably not need a table, sure.. But as someone currently running a 5E game for mostly new players (And as a new DM) I can tell you that sharing reference materials is a drag. I own a copy of the PHB in paper, and then I have a digital copy. One of my players owns it on DDB and another is using the free version. Three players have no copies and rely on mine. I can share the physical one but I use my tablet for other DMing stuff so I'm hesitant to pass it around the table. (Tangent.. I'm not saying I don't trust my players to not look at my notes or something, it's just that I don't want to give away the device holding those notes when I'm likely to need to reference them.)

But I can imagine early sessions having combat drag as each player passes around the book, flip to their class, and then make their attack. Maybe the PDFs will be formatted in a way that allows for the tables to be easily printed.. Or maybe available freely online for players to reference on their phones or something.
I can't fathom a world where this happens. Why would people have books out to use abilities when they are on your character sheet or cards? Is this how people play dnd?
 

mamba

Legend
I mean the other thing than just silently not supporting something is to publicly shame it. And I think its a business model that deserves to be publicly shamed which I am doing here. I think normalizing it is a serious issue of the trends of anti consumer and anti worker righters we have had over the last 5 decades.

So I am not okay with just don't back it.
MCDM are very transparent about what they are doing and go above and beyond in telling you not to back it if you do not like the approach, if anything I applaud them for that. You do not like them having a KS so early on, or even at all, fine, so don't back it, perfectly ok. I have no idea why you think it needs shaming,
 

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
MCDM are very transparent about what they are doing, so I am not sure why you think the business model needs to be shamed

You do not like it fine, so don't back it, perfectly ok. I have no idea why you think it needs shaming
We don't kink shame here!

(Unless your kink is MCDM).

James Franco Flirt GIF
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I also am not sure where the 'D&D 4e variant' thing comes from, nothing they ever said or any rules they discussed would fall into that category
At least for me, I'm not suggesting that the MCDM game will be a "rules variant" of 4E... I think you are correct that the specific rules they are developing are not based or changed off of the 4E ruleset whatsoever. But rather... Matt has talked about many times that of the D&D games he's played, he prefers the 4E ruleset as his ideal-- a big part of which is due to the "heroic" tactical miniatures monster combat of the game. And he has been open about wanting his game to evoke a similar feel to 4E-- a heroic monster fighting game with characters that interact with each other mechanically through movement and assistance, monsters that have specific and creative powers and abilities, and all the other hallmarks of that style that was developed for 4E. So the game would feel similar, but not be just a copy of it.

The same way that Shadowdark isn't a "D&D variant" in terms of game rules but rather an evocation of the style of early edition D&D... the MCDM game will be the same sort of evocation for 4E I suspect.
 

Helena Real

bit.ly/ato-qs (she/her)
I take it you haven't seen their OGL statement in their books? They let down the side there.

TLDR; we get to use previously created Open Game Content, but our mechanics? Naw, that's all product identity.

They're not alone in this. Goodman, Monte Cook do it too. Becoming less relevant as they cease to use the OGL, but still most definitely, not cool or honest.

I don't think the OGL stuff has anything to do with doing honest and transparent design diaries that are, in essence, free RPG design lessons available to anybody 🤷‍♀️
 

mamba

Legend
Matt has talked about many times that of the D&D games he's played, he prefers the 4E ruleset as his ideal-- a big part of which is due to the "heroic" tactical miniatures monster combat of the game.
yes, he clearly is designing a heroic and tactical game that is grid based, but that is where the similarities end, so calling it a 4e variant is misleading at best and flat out nonsense at worst
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top