MCDM's New Tactical TTRPG Hits $1M Crowdfunding On First Day!

Matt Colville's MCDM is no stranger to crowdfunding, with three million dollar Kickstarters already under its belt. With the launch of The MCDM RPG, that makes four!

This new game is not a D&D variant or a supplement for D&D, which is what MCDM has focussed on so far. This is an all-new game which concentrates on tactical play, with a fulfilment goal of July 2025. It comes in two books--a 400-page 'Heroes' book and a 'Monsters' book which is an adaption of the existing Flee, Mortals!

The MCDM RPG: Draw Steel

Whether you’re a group of local heroes sent to investigate mysterious goings-on in the nearby haunted wood, or famous mercenaries plotting and scheming in the big city, the MCDM RPG makes building adventures and fighting monsters fun.

www.backerkit.com

The game takes aim at traditional d20 fantasy gaming, referring to the burden of 'sacred cows from the 1970s', but point out that it's not a dungeon crawling or exploration game--its core activity is fighting monsters. The system is geared towards tactical combat--you roll 2d6, add an attribute, and do that damage; there's no separate attack roll.

At $40 for the base Heroes PDF and $70 for the hardcover (though there are discounts for both books if you buy them together), it's not a cheap buy-in, but with over 4,000 backers already that's not deterring anybody!

Even more ambitiously, one of the stretch goals is a Virtual Tabletop (VTT). There's already a working prototype of it.

 

[Distracted DM]

Hmm, the obvious question is then what prevents PCs from artificially extending fights, attacking rats or “dueling” each other to build up resources ahead of the next battle? Perhaps the GM can deem it “unheroic” when it feels like clear abuse?

It's mentioned in the packet that killing a bag of rats isn't going to get you anything, nor anything of that behavior.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In that case, I just went with the wording of the encounter and chose not to award them a victory point because they didn't "defeat" the kobolds. The game is described as being heroic fantasy and there didn't seem to be anything particularly heroic about sneaking past a group of lowly kobolds in the 2nd encounter of the adventure when they still had most of their recoveries and weren't even outnumbered. Given how Matt has talked about the game, that didn't seem out of place for the adventure to describe the reward that way and just doesn't seem to be the type of game they're shooting for. Now if the encounter they snuck past was a dragon that could easily kill them all, sure, I'd probably award a victory point for finding a way past it without requiring combat.

Since it was a playtest, I tried to play it as close to RAW and the exact wording of the adventure so when I provide feedback next week, it will be based on what they actually wrote.

I mean, I would suggest including what you did and your reasoning in the feedback (obviously it's up to you!) because whilst I totally get and respect your reasoning, they missed on an XP point they'd have got for fighting the kobolds, despite them presumably being push-overs given your description of them as "lowly". I think there's a bit of inherent contradiction too when you say "lowly kobolds" as if they're worth nothing, but the game disagrees and would award a Victory for fighting them. I think if they're worth a Victory for fighting, they logically have to be worth a Victory for evading, surely? Or none for either if they're really worthless. For me this is one of the reasons I prefer a Milestone approach to any kind of XP-based approach, because it means you can do what makes sense, you never have to consider "meta" consequences. Obviously it wouldn't be in a small playtest but I hope in the full game they do include a Milestone-type option.

EDIT - I can see a semi-logical but I think wrong contra-argument that if you manage to save the resources you'd expend in the fight (in terms of HP recovery etc.), you thus shouldn't get XP, but I just don't think that works. Specifically because Victories make you stronger, so as long as you're not on the edge of your recovery abilities, you want to rack up as many as possible before facing the "big boss". I don't have a problem with the "racking up victories" to be clear - I think that promotes the kind of heroic slightly videogame-y-in-a-good-way play they want (and that I like) - but it does mean I think they need to consider carefully what counts as a victory and if that's going to lead to perverse situations. Especially as this is a game where people are going to be aware of and thinking about "meta" resources like Victories.

 

[Velderan]

I mean, I would suggest including what you did and your reasoning in the feedback (obviously it's up to you!) because whilst I totally get and respect your reasoning, they missed on an XP point they'd have got for fighting the kobolds, despite them presumably being push-overs given your description of them as "lowly". I think there's a bit of inherent contradiction too when you say "lowly kobolds" as if they're worth nothing, but the game disagrees and would award a Victory for fighting them. I think if they're worth a Victory for fighting, they logically have to be worth a Victory for evading, surely? Or none for either if they're really worthless. For me this is one of the reasons I prefer a Milestone approach to any kind of XP-based approach, because it means you can do what makes sense, you never have to consider "meta" consequences. Obviously it wouldn't be in a small playtest but I hope in the full game they do include a Milestone-type option.

EDIT - I can see a semi-logical but I think wrong contra-argument that if you manage to save the resources you'd expend in the fight (in terms of HP recovery etc.), you thus shouldn't get XP, but I just don't think that works. Specifically because Victories make you stronger, so as long as you're not on the edge of your recovery abilities, you want to rack up as many as possible before facing the "big boss". I don't have a problem with the "racking up victories" to be clear - I think that promotes the kind of heroic slightly videogame-y-in-a-good-way play they want (and that I like) - but it does mean I think they need to consider carefully what counts as a victory and if that's going to lead to perverse situations. Especially as this is a game where people are going to be aware of and thinking about "meta" resources like Victories.

They were described as armed just not particularly threatening, so we're not in sack of rats category of lowly here. I don't know.. to me the situation and way the rules apply make sense for how the game was sold to me. As the game went on, the players seemed to get the hang of the style of game especially after seeing how the victory points improved their character. I think if we played it over knowing what they know now, they'd absolutely have challenged the kobolds. I really think that's the type of game MCDM is trying to make and I don't mind them leaning in hard on that aspect of gameplay.

We actually discussed "what happens if we like this game more than the PF2e game we're currently playing" and I responded "I think it will end up being a different kind of like, because from what I've heard and read they're really shooting for a different style of play". In PF2e if the players found a way to bypass an encounter without combat, I'd reward them exp. Different style of game, not better or worse. We play different games for the themes and style of gameplay they embrace. No one in my group is upset when their Call of Cthulhu character dies because that's how the game works. It's a feature, not a bug that the lethality level is very high. It's a feature, not a bug that MCDM RPG wants you to punch the bad guy in their face.

For the record, we finished the game agreeing it was a lot of fun and we'd definitely play it again so I'll continue to run future playtest packets for the same players.

 

[tetrasodium]

Uh-oh, is that a perverse incentive I see? Because it really looks like a perverse incentive given:

I mean, it'd hardly be the first TT RPG to have a perverse incentive re: XP and combat, but I was hoping in 2023 Anno Domini that perhaps designers were smart enough to spot this sort of thing and prevent it being an issue. If sneaking past an encounter doesn't give you a Victory for the purposes of XP, then a lot of players are just not going to sneak, even when it makes sense to. I get that there's a conflict because the idea is that Victories are opposed by the loss of resources etc. and you want to balance them, but I hope they resolve this in some what that doesn't make sneaking seem perverse in the longer-run.

I agree with the reasoning in 599. The director can choose to award a victory if that sneaking was done in a way that was particularly interesting/involved/heroic.... But I'm this case it sounds more like "we know they are probably down that way but can just not go down there" and doesn't deserve it as a result.

Hmm, the obvious question is then what prevents PCs from artificially extending fights, attacking rats or “dueling” each other to build up resources ahead of the next battle? Perhaps the GM can deem it “unheroic” when it feels like clear abuse?

They talked about that exact behavior in a recent video and the packet has a sidebar explaining that a bag of rats ain't heroic. The director can just declare the combat over if that seems to happen

 

[Velderan]

Something I wanted to touch on that was discussed further upthread was removing the roll to hit and how that impacts the game. If you roll an 11 or 12 on 2d6 when rolling your damage, that's a critical hit. Worth mentioning if you attack on someone else's turn for whatever reason, the same thing applies. What happens on a critical hit? It allows you to take an additional action (attack, charge, defend, recover, or use a maneuver). We only had 1 critical hit occur in the adventure, meanwhile we also only had 1 person roll snake eyes for their damage roll and both were met with the reaction you'd expect so from my limited sample size, removing the roll to hit doesn't really impact the drama or suspense of the game. It just shifts it to a different phase of the traditional combat process.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Something I wanted to touch on that was discussed further upthread was removing the roll to hit and how that impacts the game. If you roll an 11 or 12 on 2d6 when rolling your damage, that's a critical hit. Worth mentioning if you attack on someone else's turn for whatever reason, the same thing applies. What happens on a critical hit? It allows you to take an additional action (attack, charge, defend, recover, or use a maneuver). We only had 1 critical hit occur in the adventure, meanwhile we also only had 1 person roll snake eyes for their damage roll and both were met with the reaction you'd expect so from my limited sample size, removing the roll to hit doesn't really impact the drama or suspense of the game. It just shifts it to a different phase of the traditional combat process.

Thanks for that. It's what I expected would happen, but I wasn't sure. I'm looking forward to trying it.

 

[overgeeked]

Hmm, the obvious question is then what prevents PCs from artificially extending fights, attacking rats or “dueling” each other to build up resources ahead of the next battle? Perhaps the GM can deem it “unheroic” when it feels like clear abuse?

This was addressed in a video. The referee has the power to simply end a fight when they think the PCs are cheesing things.

And this...

It's mentioned in the packet that killing a bag of rats isn't going to get you anything, nor anything of that behavior.

 

[Aldarc]

Okay with 5-6 days left and $15K short of my guess of $3.8 Million, I can admit that I'm out.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I agree with the reasoning in 599. The director can choose to award a victory if that sneaking was done in a way that was particularly interesting/involved/heroic.... But I'm this case it sounds more like "we know they are probably down that way but can just not go down there" and doesn't deserve it as a result.

I want to agree but I can't, because it's contradictory to the "bag of rats" logic, hard-contradictory.

Either a group of enemies is a threat worthy of a Victory or they're a bag of rats. You can't put them in a quantum superposition where they're worthy of a Victory if you fight them, but not if you evade them.

I do agree that if they were trivially avoided (i.e. by simply going around them easily - which I wouldn't characterize as "sneaking past", note, so to me that language indicates that wasn't the case), that is a bit different, that probably need to be examined by the rules as to what should happen.

And it's still a perverse incentive. You're incentivized to fight any enemy which doesn't count as a "bag of rats", if you don't award people for sneaking past them. Also, if you set a high bar for the sneaking reward, that's a perverse incentive of its own, because a group who comes up with a smooth, easy solution that doesn't involve rolling, risk, heroism, probably because the DM didn't think of it, should by your logic not be rewarded, whereas a boneheaded group who attempts some super-risky sneak-by because they couldn't come up with a smarter one does get rewarded. This incentive isn't as perverse because that does kind of lean into genre tropes at least.

This isn't arguable or deniable, either. It flatly is, factually (not opinion-based) a perverse incentive. But I do note no-one has tried to suggest it isn't, rather just talked around that issue, so I'm not suggesting you have attempted to claim it's not! I just mention it because I'm surprised people have addressed that. Maybe it's too obvious.

It's all solvable, imho, by having a different/alternative XP approach though - I don't think 1 Victory is otherwise going to make great odds to the gameplay. But I've seen how motivated perhaps the narrow majority of groups I've encountered are by XP (this is purely anecdotal, if your experience is different, I accept that), particularly more experienced and tactically-minded groups, and I absolutely know that many parties would "steer into the wind" to get an extra chunk of XP - this has been true for the entire 35 years I've been playing and echoed by people describing games too.

It's a feature, not a bug that MCDM RPG wants you to punch the bad guy in their face.

Based on their source material and inspiration I must disagree. It's a constant in heroic fantasy that people use stealth and evasion, and that it's a good and winning tactic (that often lets you avoid unnecessary bloodshed of less morally turpid minions, too). You don't mindlessly fight every fight in heroic fantasy fiction - but you also don't try and make every fight into an ambush like you do in non-4E D&D/PF1 (and maybe PF2, I dunno). It's kick down the door fantasy, but it doesn't mean you don't sneak at times.

Also, If it's always best to punch someone in the face, and that seems to be the approach on the basis of these rules, why even have "sneaking by"-type rules? They simply don't have rules for other stuff they don't think the game should be focusing on, which I think is smart, but I'm seeing a contradiction here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It seems pretty simple to me. If you "sneak past" a threat, involving some rolls, you should be rewarded Victory for passing a Challenge with a clever solution. If you spot an encounter, and choose to "go around" (IE take another route) you are just exploring the area in a different order, and therefore don't get Victory.

In both cases, you could conceivably return later to fight them. I'd say in the first case, you'd fight them but not gain Victory (only do-over the Victory you gained the first time) but in the second, you'd be going back to claim your Victory (truly encountering them for the first time).

Maybe that isn't all that simple to explain, but I'm sure someone can clean up my explanation for clarity.