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

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.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

I get what you’re saying, but that seems to go against the notion of heroic the game is pushing and would add a whole new layer of bookkeeping. The referee would have to keep track of every single non-combat victory and note down all the relevant details to save for later. And determine at what point the situation is changed sufficiently to warrant considering this particular threat done or new enough to stop tracking or “refresh” the PCs’ ability to gain a victory by avoiding/overcoming it again. If you sneak past the same guards three times, is that three victories? How about six times? Or ten? How many guards in a patrol have to be replaced for the victory to reset? How many hours or days elapse before it resets? If the same patrol is encountered elsewhere, does that reset the victory? If the same guards are off duty at the inn and the PCs get into a brawl, does that reset the victory? Depending on the context, can you gain multiple victories from the same creatures? What’s the limit? How long does the referee have to keep those notes?

 

[Zaukrie]

It's almost like there's a scale, not a switch, and it isn't all or nothing....

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I get what you’re saying, but that seems to go against the notion of heroic the game is pushing and would add a whole new layer of bookkeeping. The referee would have to keep track of every single non-combat victory and note down all the relevant details to save for later. And determine at what point the situation is changed sufficiently to warrant considering this particular threat done or new enough to stop tracking or “refresh” the PCs’ ability to gain a victory by avoiding/overcoming it again. If you sneak past the same guards three times, is that three victories? How about six times? Or ten? How many guards in a patrol have to be replaced for the victory to reset? How many hours or days elapse before it resets? If the same patrol is encountered elsewhere, does that reset the victory? If the same guards are off duty at the inn and the PCs get into a brawl, does that reset the victory? Depending on the context, can you gain multiple victories from the same creatures? What’s the limit? How long does the referee have to keep those notes?

Man, I would never worry about it to that degree. And I think that the obvious point was that you get the Victory for any given encounter ONCE, whether the Director chooses to award it to you NOW, or LATER, would depend only on whether the Director expects them to ever come up as a threat ever again. Quite simply: If it seems like you've "dealt" with the threat (whether you fought them or not) then you get Victory. If, for whatever reason, the same group shows up later, then you don't get it a second time. I would never bother with any notes, myself. I can't imagine it ever being as complicated as you make it sound.

I also take issue with the idea that "Heroic" means "Murder everything you come across". You could be sneaking past, not out of FEAR, but out of a desire to not have to get into conflict with a guard (who's just doing their job) for THEIR sake. Among many other reasons to slip past unnoticed without getting into a murderfest.

 

[overgeeked]

Man, I would never worry about it to that degree. And I think that the obvious point was that you get the Victory for any given encounter ONCE, whether the Director chooses to award it to you NOW, or LATER, would depend only on whether the Director expects them to ever come up as a threat ever again. Quite simply: If it seems like you've "dealt" with the threat (whether you fought them or not) then you get Victory. If, for whatever reason, the same group shows up later, then you don't get it a second time. I would never bother with any notes, myself. I can't imagine it ever being as complicated as you make it sound.

The bolded bit is exactly why you'd need to keep those notes. How will you know if this group was already dealt with without keeping track of it? You'll remember? Sure. Most referees I know can't remember the name they gave the random NPC the players talked to 10 minutes ago, so remembering which groups have given the PCs victories or not several hours or sessions later without taking notes is a non-starter.

I also take issue with the idea that "Heroic" means "Murder everything you come across". You could be sneaking past, not out of FEAR, but out of a desire to not have to get into conflict with a guard (who's just doing their job) for THEIR sake. Among many other reasons to slip past unnoticed without getting into a murderfest.

No, of course not. Nor was that what I was saying. Unless the group is removed from the scene, unless they are no longer a threat, then they weren't dealt with. Sneaking past a group of guards doesn't prevent them from being a threat later on. Bribing them, intimidating them, tricking them into leaving, etc. Those are all options to actually remove them as a threat. Any of which would earn a victory, I think. But not sneaking past them as that doesn't remove them from being a threat in any way.

 

[Sockfuzz]

Hey, everybody. I haven't been following this thread super closely, and I don't really go here, if you know what I mean, but I do have access to their first playtest packet and it does specifically call out sneaking past an group of enemies/avoiding a battle as something that rewards you a victory:

VICTORIES AFTER NONCOMBAT CHALLENGES
When your hero successfully overcomes a big challenge that doesn’t involve combat, the Director can award you 1 Victory. Such challenges can include things like a particularly complicated and deadly trap, a negotiation, a complex test, a complicated puzzle, or the execution of a clever idea that avoids a battle.

There isn't really any language or advice, as far as I can tell, that's specifically about whether or not the players can farm victories by dealing with the same encounter multiple ways or at different times, but I also don't think that's really the point of this first packet.

 

[mamba]

How will you know if this group was already dealt with without keeping track of it? You'll remember?

I need to keep track of their victories, whether through combat or not, and the rest is the game evolving the same way it always does. No need to track more than you generally have to

Sneaking past a group of guards doesn't prevent them from being a threat later on. Bribing them, intimidating them, tricking them into leaving, etc. Those are all options to actually remove them as a threat. Any of which would earn a victory, I think. But not sneaking past them as that doesn't remove them from being a threat in any way.

I am not so sure that a guard you bribed is no longer a threat, you did not buy loyalty, same with threats, etc

They probably look the other way in the moment, but if the consequences of your actions cause trouble for them, I would not count in them not giving the chars up

 

[mamba]

I do have access to their first playtest packet and it does specifically call out sneaking past an group of enemies/avoiding a battle as something that rewards you a victory:

all of them sound a lot more involved than just ‘missing the encounter by taking a wrong turn / stepping off the road to let them pass without being detected’

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

There are very good reasons not to award a victory for "sneaking" past...

Spoiler: this

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.


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

Firstly there is the obvious one that got pointed out in 614 where an avoided encounter could still return later in some form. Secondly & IMO is the more important problem of going from tactical heroic towards decent into a roguelike. A roguelike can be a fun video game, but it's terrible for a ttrpg.

 

[overgeeked]

Hey, everybody. I haven't been following this thread super closely, and I don't really go here, if you know what I mean, but I do have access to their first playtest packet and it does specifically call out sneaking past an group of enemies/avoiding a battle as something that rewards you a victory:

There isn't really any language or advice, as far as I can tell, that's specifically about whether or not the players can farm victories by dealing with the same encounter multiple ways or at different times, but I also don't think that's really the point of this first packet.

Thanks for providing the actual text. That's helpful. I'm not sure how that wouldn't lead directly to having to track which enemies already gave the PCs Victories to avoid double dipping and the inevitable cheese the players would get up to.

I need to keep track of their victories, whether through combat or not, and the rest is the game evolving the same way it always does. No need to track more than you generally have to

You'd need to track which non-combat encounters gave the PCs Victories so they couldn't then go back later and defeat them in combat to double dip Victories from the same group. Unless that's something you don't care about. But, in my experience, players will find and exploit every loophole they can. So either you close the loophole up front or you're tracking every non-combat win they get to avoid letting them double, triple, quadruple dip the same enemies. Hence some of the questions up thread about when this resets, how many Victories can one group provide the PCs, etc.

I am not so sure that a guard you bribed is no longer a threat, you did not buy loyalty, same with threats, etc

In the sense that they're no longer an active obstacle, same as they would no longer be an active obstacle if you sneak past them. That's the trouble with non-combat XP that doesn't remove the enemy from the board. The PCs can always go back an encounter them again. Either the referee tracks that or the PCs will double dip Victories. Or you literally remove the enemies from the board as the referee when the PCs have overcome them however they manage it. But that would be some verisimilitude-breaking nonsense in most cases.

They probably look the other way in the moment, but if the consequences of your actions cause trouble for them, I would not count in them not giving the chars up

Of course. Just as sneaking past the guards doesn't stop them from continuing their patrol and potentially spotting you later. But, just to be clear, that's literally the problem with non-combat Victories. Either the ref keeps track of who's given the PCs Victories or the PCs can sneak past the same guards a half dozen times and get six Victories out of it. So you either get lots of bookkeeping for the ref or the players cheesing the XP system.

The ref can simply say no, of course. But at a guess they'd need a good reason to not give the PCs the Victories they've earned according to the system. Don't award non-combat Victories? Okay, so you're pushing murderhobo as a playstyle by only rewarding that. Don't award combat Victories? Okay, so you're undermining the premise of the monster fighting game by not rewarding fighting monsters. Award non-combat Victories? Okay, so you'll need to either accept that the players will inevitable cheese the XP mechanic by overcoming without killing as many NPCs as they can (which again would undermine the monster fighting focus of the game), or you'll need to keep track of which NPCs have awarded Victories to the PCs so they can't cheese the XP mechanics.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The bolded bit is exactly why you'd need to keep those notes. How will you know if this group was already dealt with without keeping track of it? You'll remember? Sure. Most referees I know can't remember the name they gave the random NPC the players talked to 10 minutes ago, so remembering which groups have given the PCs victories or not several hours or sessions later without taking notes is a non-starter.

I can't remember a name I gave an NPC 10 minutes ago, either, but I can't imagine a scenario where a group would sneak past an encounter, then return to fight them, and I'd somehow remember to have the encounter EXIST, but not remember that the party snuck past it earlier.

Obviously some kind of memory or notes would be involved, but I simply don't understand how it would be MORE notes than usual to achieve the results that I'm talking about.

No, of course not. Nor was that what I was saying. Unless the group is removed from the scene, unless they are no longer a threat, then they weren't dealt with. Sneaking past a group of guards doesn't prevent them from being a threat later on. Bribing them, intimidating them, tricking them into leaving, etc. Those are all options to actually remove them as a threat. Any of which would earn a victory, I think. But not sneaking past them as that doesn't remove them from being a threat in any way.

Unless it does? In the scenario I was referring to, the idea would be that the Director would reward Victory under circumstances when they feel that the threat was MOST LIKELY dealt with and would only worry about not giving victory a second time under a scenario where the same encounter reoccurs.

Conversely, I can foresee many a scenario where "bribing" a guard could backfire later - so I'm not sure your version is somehow hitting some sort of precision that mine is missing.

I mean, sure, I'm with you that if it seems likely that they just snuck past some guards only to set off an alarm in the next room and encounter them anyway, yeah, no victory for the first encounter.

But I think my point was that it's not that hard to figure out. You either give them Victory (because you think they deserve it) or you don't (because you expect them to get it later, or because you don't think their solution was worth it) but you don't need to worry much about it. All you need to do is to not give it to them twice for the same encounter.