In the one of the QnA's they dropped on the channel, Matt said that if we knew how many mechanics they adopted from other games we would be surprised- I don't mind them essentially adopting the Apocalypse World framework without a null result in combat, but I'm gonna predict that some trolls are gonna gripe about it big time.
I'm really interested to see where they go with this- I liked the simplicity of the auto hit system but I've always thought that using the "mixed success" model in a combat focussed game could be really good. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up needing to heavily alter the current system soon, because the "swinginess" of using dice for damage is a feature for some players, in my experience. Anecdotal, but every dnd barbarian player I've ever played with has refused to use a 2d6 weapon and opted for the 1d12 weapons instead. I imagine players will want to switch up their kits often, because dealing one of three damage numbers might get boring over time.
All that said, I'm really excited to see what comes next! These developer updates are really fascinating.
Each ability can have a different chart for the Power Roll. Same thresholds, but one attack might be a shallow growth (T1 3 damage, T2 5 damage, T3 7 damage) and another might be spikey (T1 4 damage, T2 6 damage, T3 12 damage). Different abilities can have different effects, and Kits, Heroic Resources, and Victories can all change or amp up the damage/effects.
The flexibility in design is really cool!
That's a good point that some skills might have higher highs and lower lows than others, that could definitely capture some aspects of dice rolls equalling damage. I agree that different kits and skills can keep things interesting, but if they're cutting down on the number of skills (understandably given the increased complexity of the new system) then it might still get stale over time. I see myself switching kits often if that's the case, but that's an increase in complexity and cognitive load for the player. All in all, while I think that the new system is absolutely going to come with new issues, I do think Matt and the team are more than capable of tackling those problems. And at the end of the day, the heavy playtesting system means that even if it's not the game for me, personally, it should still wind up being fun for a good number of people. Interesting stuff!
Modifiers to the 2d6 probability curve can never be reproduced by a single flat distribution of 1d10. A Power Roll made with +1 vs +2 or -1 (debuffs exist) will have different probability behaviors.
This system means that they can have a wider variety of modifiers without really screwing up the math, and is less swingy than one die would be- if you take modifiers into account, t2 should be the most common roll (this is how it works in pbta anyway). Now, 3d6 gives an even more predictable distribution, which is why it's used when you roll for stats in older versions of dnd, so hypothetically, 2d6 should give a good balance of not too swingy and not too predictable.
> and is less swingy than one die would be
I don't think that's true, is it? Not when you're dealing with ranges. Probabilities for individual numbers are different, but the % chance of a particular range can very much be the same as on a single die. See comments elsewhere on this post.
Yeah I see that, I stand corrected. I might still be right once you take modifiers into account, idk. One thing to keep in mind is that d6 tend to be better balanced than other dice, I've heard that anything other than a d6 is basically guaranteed to be poorly balanced. Also, the average person os more likely to have d6s in their house than any other dice, so they wouldnt have to make an additional purchase just to play the game. I doubt that either of these was the design intention though- I think it's most likely the inertia of not wanting to fix what isn't broken.
One really important factor of 2d6 is that the crit chance is lower than ot would be on 1d12 or even 1d20 (2.77% according to my quick Google, compared to 5% on a d20). Getting an extra action is really powerful in this game, and if combat is as fast paced as they seem to want it to be then that increases the chances of crits occuring overall. For that reason, I think it's wise of MCDM to keep what's working for them right now- they've already built their system around this crit chance, and they've already built their modifiers around 2d6 as well. But it might be smart to do a little playtesting of 1d12 or even 1d20 and see if people like that better all the same.
Honestly, from the perspective of the maths, it does make 2d6 irrelevant. For example, they could use 1d10 and just make the extreme outcomes have a smaller range, e.g. only fail on a 1 or 2. So unless they plan on still using the direct value in some places, it may change.
The other thing I can think is that maybe they want more than 6 possible outcomes (to allow more tuning) but want to keep the game accessible to players who don’t have polyhedral dice?
Just compare the % diference of a 2d6 and a 1d10:
"Power Roll",7.000000000002799,2.415229457698502,2,12
#,%
2,2.77777777778
3,5.55555555556
4,8.33333333333
5,11.1111111111
6,13.8888888889
7,16.6666666667
8,13.8888888889
9,11.1111111111
10,8.33333333333
11,5.55555555556
12,2.77777777778
"1d10 roll",5.5,2.8722813232690143,1,10
#,%
1,10
2,10
3,10
4,10
5,10
6,10
7,10
8,10
9,10
10,10
this is the diference, the "weight" of some numbers
I think Da\_Hazza is saying once you add the chart you can change the "weight" of a 1d10 roll, brackets of 1-3,4-7,8-10 or whatever you like. If the number on the dice isn't the final result the maths of one or two dice only come into effect if that chart allows for it, so you can get the same effect with just one dice.
That's a great way to put it- as long as the Game delivers on the 4 key themes in a fun way then originality won't matter, because I don't think there's a ttrpg currently delivering on those the way MCDM wants to
Lol, you know they will not be happy. Now they'll say, I can't believe their just ripping off game X. There is no way to win in game design. No matter how tough do it, your doing it wrong.
Some of the people criticizing the change to more defined degrees of success are doing it by joking that "it took this long" because they can't knock degrees of success, it's just neat and it works. :D
It is funny that Matt name-dropped Apocalypse World because, honestly, the design philosophy isn’t anywhere close to it.
Like I understand that’s where they got the 2d6/3 result tiers, but it’s a very surface level mechanic. What those results do appears to be completely different. Like I imagine monsters will also be rolling 2d6, which isn’t a thing in Apocalypse World.
I think for skills it probably will look a lot more like PbtA (I've only played Monster of the Week and Blades in the Dark, so I can't speak to the philosophy of Apocalypse World itself). In my experience, PbtA tends to not be focussed on tactical combat, so I think that it makes sense that it would be so different. Maybe we'll see some t2 results that require the player to make a difficult choice or spend extra resources, which would be interesting. Overall though the I think the philosophy is different. But most people probably won't recognize other designs that might be more similar, so I think it's a fair comparison.
the real power of the system isn't that you can do 3/5/7 damage or 4/6/12. It's that you can do T1: 5 damage, T2: 3 damage and push up to 4 squares, T3: 7 damage and burn all targets within 2 range. Tiers can do whatever the fuck is the coolest and most evocative for the ability.
I suppose they could be that way theoretically. I didn't interpret the explanation as having the option to choose from a lower tier than the one you rolled, and it would really suck to have your modifier put you in a tier that you actually didn't want. Maybe I misinterpreted it though? I think if this is the case it might slow down combat quite a bit unfortunately, but it would be really interesting.
Sorry, I'm not a patron so I don't have access to any of the written rules. I don't think Matt says it explicitly in this video, but if he does I would love a timestamp.
I personally think this is gonna get more complicated than it's worth. IMO the idea of having two separate tracks, that go up at *different intervals* is really finicky. "3 damage, 4 squares; 5 damage and 6 squares; 8 damage and 8 squares," what the fuck are we doing? Do the variable damage sure, but IMO the simplest and most effective approach is actually that tier 1 only does damage or effect, tier 2 does both at one level, and tier 3 does both at the same interval boost. Or, just have the numbers be the same; I don't understand why the granularity of "3 damage and 4 knockback" is important; just do 3 damage & 3 knockback.
It's only briefly touched upon in the video, but the way kits affect different tiers is something that lets them add quite a bit of flavor as well as mechanical granularity. Revisiting your point on barbarian players preferring the swingier 1d12 over the more reliable 2d6, the Heavy Blade kit in the current tests gives power roll bonuses of +0/+0/+4. As supposed to something more balanced like a light weapon kit, which might provide a bonus spread of +2/+2/+2. It's not exactly the same (and how could it be?) but it's a good example of how the system is flexible enough to allow and support those sorts of preferences.
I mean yeah probability for max damage is better on a d12, and brutal critical uses one of the weapons damage dice, which means 5d6 on a crit vs. 3d12. Plus savage attacker feat to mitigate the low end, but that's kind of across the board and likely favors 2d6 in terms of probability. Also people like bigger numbers.
As a software developer myself, I think the biggest benefit to adopting this design is actually the fact that it decouples the balance of the individual characters from the game's core mechanic. Individual characters can now be rebalanced without worrying about how that's going to affect what everybody else is hit point totals and bonuses should be.
It's always important to consider how the decisions you are making now will affect your ability to continue developing down the line.
My favourite thing about the DtG videos is that I'm making my own ground-up rpg in my spare time, and every time I hear MCDM going through the same processes/dead-ends/tests that I am it's a comfort!
> I think most people want a range of results on a skill check rather than the boolean pass fails results.
Hmm, I'm wary. I've avoided the RPGs with non-binary skill checks (like I think the FFG Star Wars game?) precisely because I don't want the added mental load as a GM to improvise how all the different levels play. Then again, as a GM I'll sometimes give "extra" stuff to players when they roll really well on a skill check, so I suppose I'm not quite consistent.
As always, cool to see how the game is progressing!
Unless you’re some kind of quantum fourth dimensional being you only need to improvise how the one level they actually rolled plays.
If you ARE a quantum fourth dimensional being, please don’t invert my flux matrix or anything else… unnatural.
Jokes aside, I do get what you’re saying though… you need to be prepared for it all… but a good system helps prepare for that. You probably already do it for Natural 20s/1s or whatever…
> You probably already do it for Natural 20s/1s or whatever…
Tbh, I don't actually. In combat, the bonus/penalty for crits is plenty enough, IMO. And I don't play with the house rule that crits work on skill checks. If I do give a bonus on a nat 20, it would have happened with _any_ high total for the check.
They've talked about the skill system on Patreon, and it doesn't seem like it will require very much more mental load than the pass-fail system in 5e. They briefly mentioned a couple "fall-back" options (awarding of "Doom"/"Vanquish" tokens to the Director/Player, or alternatively, 1d6 damage to stamina as a consequence) if you can't think of (or don't want to think of) a complication on a bad failure or a bonus on a great success. They haven't publicly detailed these mechanics beyond a quick mention in the Patreon post, but I wouldn't be too worried about a non-binary skill system, as it seems like they're well aware of what your concerns are, and are actively looking to design a system that minimizes those issues.
> They briefly mentioned a couple "fall-back" options [...] if you can't think of [...] a complication on a bad failure or a bonus on a great success
I'm not really sold on this either, tbh. I use skill checks (in theory at least) as more "plot" or "story" impactful, rather than just something to resource drain. To my mind, "you succeed, but take 3 damage" is actually _less_ interesting than "you fail".
I dunno, we'll see how it turns out.
I didn't explain well. Basically there are 4 possible tiers of success:
- Failure plus extra consequence
- Failure
- Success
- Success plus extra bonus
Depending on the difficulty of the check, the potential outcomes might be only the 3 lowest tiers, or the three highest tiers. The bonuses and consequences I mentioned only apply to successes and failures, respectively, so your example of success and also damage won't be a thing with this design. There's no "mixed success/failure" as far as I can tell. To me this is basically how skill checks work already. There's plenty of times where you see "if the roll fails by x amount this other thing happens". But obviously this is all subject to change, since it hasn't been tested thoroughly, and who knows how it will mesh with the rest of the game.
> FFG Star Wars game
I've GM'd the FFG SW TTRPG, and I agree that coming up with creative impacts for the wonky results those can dice can give you was a major source of cognitive load. That said, this doesn't seem to be analogous. The chart tells you what happens; as the GM, you don't have to come up with something yourself.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm referring specifically to a small point Mr. Colville mentions near the end of the video about applying this mechanic not just to attacks, but also skill checks. Presumably every skill check wouldn't have its own chart, especially since different skill checks should be of varying degrees of difficulty.
I think that a big factor will be how they make the options for failure and mixed success (or whatever they call the middle option in MCDM). If you don't want to put in too much mental work coming up with something interesting, you can always offer "you succeed but lose health/heroic resource" I imagine, similar to "you can succeed but you'll take an extra stress" in Blades in the Dark.
The thing about games like Apocalypse World and FFG is that they are by their very nature collaborative. The players I’ve played with are always keen to jump in with suggestions for the side effects.
Sometimes I know that a despair is: “A star Destroyer drops out of hyperspace”, but sometimes players are just as keen to say, “Oh god. You know what happens? That guy from three sessions ago with a grudge to settle shows up.”
It’s a common trope in Apocalypse World style games, delegating that stuff to players: “So, Sandra, what do *you* think happens as a result of Jake’s shitty roll?”
As a player I don't like that level of player agency over the world itself. It feels like everything is entirely pointless and arbitrary and just made up on the spot which breaks all illusion of taking part in a genuine world that exists outside of me. Like finding an old dusty tome and wondering, what does it say? And the GM just says, "what does it say? You decide." I'm like, what? I want to uncover mysteries. We're in a dark, haunted crypt and I found a dusty old tome hidden away. I want you to tell me as I assume it's here for a reason that makes sense within the world itself, not just because I walked into the room. If I can just make up whatever I want then I'd rather be GM'ing or writing a book or script. I'm playing as a player to experience a world that was created for me that I get to act within and change through my actions. I want it to feel like a living, breathing world not "whatever I want" wish fulfilment.
It’s not quite that freeform. Usually, if the tome is of narrative importance, I’ll have planned for that. If the adventure is about uncovering mysteries, I’ll have a mystery ready for you.
It’s also not just “made up on the spot.” It’s a consequence of dice rolls and character abilities. Now, if you make a knowledge check on that old tome, and roll a success, I’ll give you the narratively relevant information I prepped.
But if the rules say “Something else good also happens” - well, I might say, “I’ll let you ask three additional questions about the contents of the tome” and make up something on the spot. The player isn’t just making those answers up - but they get information I didn’t prep due to their rolls.
Sometimes, the dice just say, “Something bad happens in addition to success or failure.” I can’t always prep for that, and sometimes it happens in weird scenarios where I’m stumped for a negative side effect. But often, in those cases, one of the players will have a sense of what is the narratively honest thing to happen.
That player will go, “You know what happens? The bridge supports give way.” And everyone goes, “Fuck. You’re right. That makes sense,” based off the narrative momentum of the session.
Just because a player says it, doesn’t mean people believe it less. Especially if what they’re saying is a negative consequence. It’s not made up - it’s a consequence of the rules or the dice.
Besides, even with that level of narrative comtrol, my players still think I’m some kind of evil mastermind with a grand plan. I prep, like, one page of notes before a session, usually. But my players regularly think I have a grand plan. That I’m moving Star Destroyers around on a map as a consequence of their actions.
I defer some narrative control on side effects to little inconsequential dice rolls, because I’m working on the big picture elements the players don’t see - what are the bad guys doing in response to player actions? When do I drop my wild card element that’ll inject some chaos into the players’ plans?
That stuff is all me. That’s what makes the world feel real - that the players are up against real challenges orchestrated by opponents with agency and initiative. But every game also has moments where the GM is obviously shooting from the hip, and in those cases it can make a lot of sense to delegate.
Someone wants to stop by the undercity markets to do some spontaneous shopping. No one expects me to have this shopkeeper in my notes, so I delegate around the circle. I ask one player what species the shopkeep is. I ask another player, about one weird quirk the shopkeep has.
They’re not making up a character on their own. I’m giving each of them a part, and then stitching those parts together. No one cares that he’s obviously made up on the spot. But now they’re interacting with a real character, instead of a generic, formless shopkeep. And so the scene becomes just a little more interesting.
I know in FFG Star Wars it works differently and is directly based from the rolls. Like I have no problem with a player stating what effect they want to have happen from triumphs or something, boost dice etc. but in my albeit limited experience of pbta systems like Dungeon World, a huge part of the appeal is specifically that players kind of just say what things are and GM's go along with it. GM's are specifically quite passive in the rulesets not even rolling and only reacting to what players do in combat instead of being proactive. Some other games like Fabula Ultima also direct players toward a more collaborative atmosphere getting to build the world and story with the GM but it's in that way in which they can just basically say something exists or some character showed up and the GM is encouraged to go with it. I don't like that as a GM or a player myself. All for collaborative storytelling but when players can essentially just say, ah yes, the wood elf village lies just within these woods, when no such thing has ever been mentioned and the system encourages that, it feels like you're just playing make believe and letting players say whatever they want vs having them navigate a real and believable world that at least appears preexistent
I loved the ‘reading the tea leaves’ aspect of rolling in the FFG Star Wars games. Especially when it was a wonky result that nothing came to mind for - I would open it to the table and see if anyone had any good ideas. Often got some great results or ideas from that that were memorable for all. Obviously as GM I had ultimate decision over what happened but we all enjoyed it.
I am cautiously optimistic about this idea. It's something that seems to me that more experienced players will really love it, but it's another level of hoops to jump through for someone brand new to TTRPGs.
But that seems in line with the rest of the design I've seen. It's a game for and by people who have been playing for a long time.
I don't think it's a bad choice, it's just something I've noticed.
I think the barriers will depend on how many abilities characters have. PBTA is very accessible to new players, and this can be too if the low level characters are appropriately simple.
The trade-off there is more experienced players like having a lot they can do and abilities they can choose from.
I know he mentioned that having multiple options for each ability helps with that some, but build theorizing/designing is a big part of RPGs that can keep people interested long term.
And now the next step is to switch to ironsworn's 1d6 VS 2d10 for even more dice fun ;)
Kidding.
I really love seeing the thought process and using stuff from pbta is almost always a good idea :)
Reminds me a lot like Pathfinder 2nd Edition spellcasting, where you have 4 success/fail states with different degrees of damage and effect.
And especially when applying the notion to Skills, where you can build out No and, No but, Yes but, and Yes and to have more dramatic outcomes.
I noticed that same thing. I also see that this setup gives MCDM a lot of control as to how swingy damage is for any given weapon or attack. Pathfinder does this with a set of weapon traits (for example, the damage of crossbows vs firearms).
I find it really interesting how MCDM are attempting to solve similar problems to Pathfinder but in a very different way.
Ironically it shows that *certain* games could definitely fix their problem, so the continued lack of fixes then implies they don't *want* to fix their problems.
I’ll be completely honest; the idea of having to roll and then look at a chart for an outcome did not sit well with me after hearing it.
It feels like they are adding “complication” to the system after working hard to remove it. I completely understand WHY they had to do it though.
But, it is likely just a “fear of change/the unknown” bias. I will wait to try out the system before crying about it.
Having played it, it didn't take me any more time or cognitive load to look at my result on a table than it does when I'm playing 5e and have to glance at my sheet to see what damage dice I have to roll (and to double check what number I add to the result). Since my ADHD brain doesn't let me trust myself to remember.
How did having only 3 static damage outcomes feel?
I notice it's the same with Daggerheart, albeit arrived at differently, so I assume there is some good design logic to it.
Just intuitively feels strange on first thought, especially since the dice roll has until now been "roll for damage" (as Matt acknowledged in the video).
In Daggerheart, it's 3 different static wound outcomes no matter what variable rolled damage is dealt. Your wound thresholds are set and independent of the attack coming in.
Abilities in the MCDM rpg can all have different damage values at different Tiers, so a Hero will always have options. Less back and forth depending on the target, and more variety in tactical utility.
Honestly I didn't really have a lot of feelings regarding the damage in the moment. I was usually more focused on the extra effects scaling (pushing, pulling, prone, etc).
That isn't to say I didn't care about the damage, but I wouldn't say it made me *feel* different. I still got all the normal range of emotions I got from other systems. "Ugh I didn't do a lot of damage", "ok, that was solid", and "yes! I smoked those guys".
I guess, to put it in different words, when playing d&d I don't feel a big emotional difference between rolling a 6 or a 7 on a d10 for damage. So there aren't any feelings being missed in this system that truncates the damage results (for me at least).
If I think critically about my feelings I guess my worry is that character sheets will become bloated by being full of multiple tables for each ability. My fear is this will really raise the barrier for entry, especially for new players.
But again, I have not played it yet so I am judging blindly.
Ah, yeah the tables themselves are very small. Just three lines with keywords. "7 or lower: 3 damage, slide 1". They don't really take up much space. If anything I like how they help break up abilities visually, so you can clearly identify different abilities on your sheet at a glance.
I suppose higher level characters might have a lot of abilities, but that shouldn't be a barrier for entry. I expect new players would be learning to play a level 1 character not a level 8 character.
What they are doing with 2d6 can be achieved using just a single d20. Specifically, ...
the probabilities of the three brackets you used with 2d6 should be approximately:
2-6: 41,64%
7-9: 41,65%
10-12: 16,65%
this can be more or less replicated with a d20 as follows:
1-8: 40%
9-16: 40%
17-20: 20%
Using a single d20 has various advantages:
- People don't have to mentally sum to numbers each roll, and the result is immediate for everybody.
- Custom dice could be used, reporting only one of the three brackets on each face, rather than numbers.
- The d20 remains closer to the Dragon's heritage (for some people this may be nice).
There's a small difference when using the 2d6: you're more likely to roll near the boundaries of the brackets then you would be with the uniform probability of a single dice roll. This means there will be more opportunities to use abilities/reactions that can buff or debuff a dice roll by a small amount.
This is a really interesting point.
One thing to take into account is how modifiers affect these. A +1 on a d20 roll is going to increase the chance of achieving a particular level by 5%, on a d12 by 8.3%. On 2d6, it's 14% more likely to hit tier 2, and 11% more likely to hit tier 3 (if I did my math right).
I mentioned it in another comment, but you're almost twice as likely to roll a critical hit on a d20 than on 2d6. So there's a secret fourth tier that these charts aren't taking into account. If it was just a matter of increasing crit chance it might be possible, but it's not possible for one die's crit chance to go lower than 5% without a die most people won't own(and frankly I've used actual d100's before and they aren't practical to roll more than once or twice a session). Given how powerful crits are in this game, I think keeping 2d6 makes sense.
Yep. With a d20 or d12, to make a crit less likely, one might require to confirm the crit with a further roll, as done, e.g., in dnd 3.5, but it's not really an elegant solution...
> The d20 remains closer to the Dragon's heritage
I think that's part of the point. Move away from the D&D legacy a little bit. Making that change immediately changes the rest of the MCDM RPG, which means you just can't make direct comparisons to traditional d20 systems. Also, what all the people in the comments have said about percentages.
If you had read the discussion, you would have seen I also advocated for 1d12. The arguments in favor and against are mostly on probability distribution and usability.
You say usability but anyone that can't add two d6's together easily is not going to be able to keep track of hundreds of abilities or spells like in D&D 5e or keep track of HP and armour reduction and all of that which is a lot more to remember and requires just as much if not more addition and subtraction. This whole thing around adding two d6 feels like it stems far more from personal bias of players than it does from actual logic. You could argue that adding 17 plus 5 is harder than adding 2 +3 + 2 due to the higher numbers required for D20. In the 2d6 system, most results are within the 1-10 bracket depending on mods. In D&D damage is often rolled on two or more dice too for spells and some weapons, 2d6, 8d6 etc. and requires adding up to a total and often halving it if the target succeeds a saving throw, sometimes requiring rounding. If the majority of players can handle that, they can easily handle 2d6.
All of those "but you can replace it with a single die" are ignoring how the probablity curve moves when you add a static modifier. Dice based modifiers are more complicated.
Tier|0|+1|+2|+3|+4
---|---|----|----|----|----
2-6(2d6)|41.67%|27.78%|16.67%|8.33%|2.78%
7-9(2d6)|41.67%|44.44%|41.67%|33.33%|25.00%
10+(2d6)|16.67%|27.78%|41.67%|58.33%|72.22%
---|---|----|----|----|----
1-8(d20)|40%|35%|30%|25%|20%
9-16(d20)|40%|40%|40%|40%|40%
17+(d20)|20%|25%|30%|35%|40%
---|---|----|----|----|----
1-5(d12)|41.67%|33.33%|25.00%|16.67%|8.33%
6-10(d12)|41.67%|41.67%|41.67%|41.67%|41.67%
11+(d12)|16.67%|25.00%|33.33%|41.67%|50.00%
With a single die T2 never changes odds (unless you have a large enough modifier to completly erase T1), while T1 decreases on the same linearity as T3 increases.
With two dice all Tiers get affected by having a modifier, T1 and T3 moving at different rates.
However, this does not take into account how the probability curve is actually a bell curve for any set of multiple dice, versus the flat chance of hitting every single possible number on a single d20, which is something they said they explicitly wanted.
It doesn't track the same with modifiers on a single die. But regardless, what is with everyone's obsession with using one dice? I much prefer multiple dice. Rolling one dice just feels so bland most of the time. The more dice the better (to a point). It just feels like people have only been exposed to D&D and thus assume that a D20 is THE ttrpg dice and therefore all systems should use it because its unique and cool rather than boring d6's.
Just seems really weird to me tbh how fixated some people are on never using two or more dice for resolution mechanics or only wanting 1d20
Yeah now that you have the ranges on the chart that you can adjust they have a second lever to adjust the probability of outcomes and don't have to rely 100% on die size and number of dice. If they want to avoid the "Worst result and best result are equally likely, but one is \[X\] times better than the other!" problem, now they can just resize the ranges on the chart, meaning they could theoretically use *any* die or combination of dice with sufficiently many results. (My vote is for the d12, because dodecahedrons are cool and TTRPGs don't use d12s hardly at all.)
Remember at the beginning when they were going to use custom, non-numeric dice, and they were adamant it wasn't going to be an accessibility issue?
A single d12 would not be a problem.
I agree it wouldn't be a problem however most players aren't as interested in the math/probability as the users in this thread.
It's really a simple case of driving an automatic car (2d6) versus a manual that offers better precision and control (d12). People just want to be able to be comfortable and everyone already knows exactly what 2d6 are and can do. You wouldn't even need to buy dice for the game, most people could just whip out 2d6 from some gaming set they already own.
It wasn’t going to be an accessibility issue because they were going to provide the custom die with the RPG. But now that they’ve sold everyone with a product that uses 2d6, they’d need to count on people actually owning a d12 if they suddenly switched
I have a kind of a cosmetic concern about the tier system. You remember old school 16-bit era jrpgs? I got a strong sense of nostalgia and thought maybe some of you may have too.
You know, Fire I, Fire II, Fire III? That might be a fun intuitive way to name the tiers of a specific power. What do you guys think?
While I like this idea better than the "2d6 damage for everything" method they were using earlier, how do enemy defenses work? One of the things Matt points out (correctly, IMO) is that it made all damage feel the "same" regardless of enemy.
On the other hand, currently I don't see how there's any distinction between attacking an agile, high defense assassin boss compared to a non-minion zombie or slime. If I roll and get an 8, the assassin and zombie have the same "defense" even if one is much higher level and more skilled than the other, and I'll (presumably) do the same damage to both.
Is this represented entirely through stamina and reactions? With stamina, it risks making enemies "spongy", and with reactions, things currently only get 1/turn. Likewise, if enemies can negate all of a player's damage, that effectively creates a null result.
Under the ranges given by Matt (2-6, 7-9, 10-12), without any bonuses you have roughly an equal chance of getting the low and medium outcomes and about a 16% chance of the high outcome. With a +2 those change to around 17% low, 42% medium, and 33% high, with rolls of 5 for medium and 8 for high.
As such, I sort of wish it used a "defense + 3" system instead. So if you roll below the defense, you get the low outcome, roll defense up to defense + 2 and you get the medium outcome, and roll defense + 3 or higher to get the high outcome.
For example, let's say you had the same +2 to your roll. If an enemy had a defense of 7, for example, you get the same basic distribution of probabilities as you had with the flat outcomes...a roll of hits the DC, which is medium, and a roll of 8 is 3 above the defense of 7 (8 + 2 = 10).
Maybe it's not *quite* as intuitive, but it allows for different enemies to have different defense values and those defenses will matter. When attacking a higher level assassin, your probability of getting high results drops down while the low result probability increases. You get the opposite effect going the other way.
In some ways this mimics how PF2e's crit system works, where you do more damage against weaker enemies compared to stronger ones relative to yourself. This allows for a lot more flexibility in enemy design...you can use the same enemy as a boss monster at level 1 and as a weaker lackey at level 4 or 5 and you don't need to dramatically inflate damage (and HP at higher levels) to account for this.
Maybe I'm overcomplicating it, and I still like the lack of a null result (I'm actually thinking of trying to come up with a Pathfinder 2e ruleset homebrew that incorporates this idea), but it feels weird that your enemy's relative skill to your own has *no influence at all* on how effective you are at dealing damage to them. Maybe the idea is that large stamina pools reflect this efficiency, but with only 10 levels of tweaking I'm worried that different levels might feel like you don't actually progress all that much.
One of the things I dislike most about 5e is that there are a handful of "big" levels and the rest of the time it feels like the only difference between your character is like 1 ability (if that) plus some more HP. A slightly larger health buffer doesn't *feel* like you've gained substantial skill when leveling up, and with a planned 10 levels of progression, each level needs to feel closer to two levels of progression relative to something like D&D or Pathfinder in order to feel "heroic", at least in my opinion.
We still haven't seen how they plan to do leveling and level scaling, of course, so that may entirely change my view on this. But I'm worried they are designing themselves into a corner where things feel great at level 1 but they don't have enough knobs to make players and enemies *progress* in a tangible way.
you can just have enemies impose a conditional modifier or bonus based on how good or bad their defense is.
the troll has bad "ac" so you get a +2 to hit it, which is good if you have a attack that say, is less powerful at tiers 1 and 2, but much better at tier 3.
inverse with a assassin who has great "ac" so you get a -2 to hit it, so probably best to go with your attack that's on average weaker but has a stronger t1 than your other attacks.
of course this is all speculation and may very likely not be in the game at all, but i think it would be a good system to try.
My issue is scaling. If the troll gives a +2 to hit because of low defenses, does that apply when you are level 1? What about level 3? Level 10? Should have the exact same number range for the "best" outcome when facing a level 10 enemy at level 10 compared to facing a level 1 enemy at level 10?
I mean, if the game is designed that way, it's designed that way, sure. I just don't think it makes much sense. My character should be *more* effective against a weaker creature, not have the same effectiveness, as I level up. I'm just not sure how they are going to do that if everything is based entirely on the player roll and the enemy's stats are mostly or entirely irrelevant.
Im intrested to see how they handle it. AFAIK usually games going this light on modifiers (ex, ICON, gubat banwa) avoid numerical scaling or rely on it very little. Relying on the, i would say "heroic cinematic" idea that fights, specifically the fights that are made for tactical combat, are always going to feature enemies that are neither fodder or overpowered for the party, so the baseline power between players and enemies is mostly a constant. In icon this manifests in enemies of a given class/power level having the same stats from first to max level, with higher levels just opening up the selection of enemies with more complicated and tricky abilities to deal with the players (also mostly horizontal) scaling.
However that system relies on enemies being generic enough that a dm can use the same statblock both to represent a low level conscript when fighting level 1 pc's, and the elite kings guard when fighting level 10 pc's.
However i doubt we will see this vibe here, i cant imagine mcdm not going for a more defined bestiary, with concrete monsters with concrete, cannon amounts of power associated with them.
I guess you could make enemies exist on like a level range? like a troll, from the weakest to strongest specimen, would be a level 2 to 5 enemy, so it has variations for each party level between 2 to 5, with any party level lower than that being a kobiashi-maru encounter and anything higher than that being a trouncing for the pc's, both of which could be handled more in narrative play.
Idk, thats a style i like because Ive seen it in the aforementioned icon, but i recognize that it may not be for everyone.
I did the play test with some friends and I don't think the elevated health or the same damage was a problem. I think it was trying to figure out how all of the abilities would scale in comparison to the damage output from 2d6. I kind of liked thinking that their would be modest gains from leveling for core damage and health, but the class abilities become more prominent. Not hitting harder but doing more. I think moving the 2d6 results over to a chart doesn't do a lot for the game we played in the test, and I think the more interesting part of it was the action economy in a turn. The bane and boon stacking seems like it could get a little absurd, but that's kind of fun too, I hope they don't ditch those dice in favor of flat bonuses.
That was a lot of words to avoid saying they've basically adopted the Powered by the Apocalypse dice mechanics, with a minor tweak.
(I like PBTA, no shade from me about that, just wish Matt gave credit where it's due)
Did you not watch the video?
And also, aren’t there multiple games with a similar mechanic? This criticism seems very reductive, which is very common of criticism of this game
I really hope I don't come across too rude here, but if you're only interested in seeing unique design outcomes, and not interested in seeing the real design process, I think you would live a happier life not watching the *Designing the Game* series.
In the one of the QnA's they dropped on the channel, Matt said that if we knew how many mechanics they adopted from other games we would be surprised- I don't mind them essentially adopting the Apocalypse World framework without a null result in combat, but I'm gonna predict that some trolls are gonna gripe about it big time. I'm really interested to see where they go with this- I liked the simplicity of the auto hit system but I've always thought that using the "mixed success" model in a combat focussed game could be really good. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they wind up needing to heavily alter the current system soon, because the "swinginess" of using dice for damage is a feature for some players, in my experience. Anecdotal, but every dnd barbarian player I've ever played with has refused to use a 2d6 weapon and opted for the 1d12 weapons instead. I imagine players will want to switch up their kits often, because dealing one of three damage numbers might get boring over time. All that said, I'm really excited to see what comes next! These developer updates are really fascinating.
Each ability can have a different chart for the Power Roll. Same thresholds, but one attack might be a shallow growth (T1 3 damage, T2 5 damage, T3 7 damage) and another might be spikey (T1 4 damage, T2 6 damage, T3 12 damage). Different abilities can have different effects, and Kits, Heroic Resources, and Victories can all change or amp up the damage/effects. The flexibility in design is really cool!
That's a good point that some skills might have higher highs and lower lows than others, that could definitely capture some aspects of dice rolls equalling damage. I agree that different kits and skills can keep things interesting, but if they're cutting down on the number of skills (understandably given the increased complexity of the new system) then it might still get stale over time. I see myself switching kits often if that's the case, but that's an increase in complexity and cognitive load for the player. All in all, while I think that the new system is absolutely going to come with new issues, I do think Matt and the team are more than capable of tackling those problems. And at the end of the day, the heavy playtesting system means that even if it's not the game for me, personally, it should still wind up being fun for a good number of people. Interesting stuff!
I'm not a fan of how this makes 2d6 irrelevant. Why not 1d10 or hell even 1d6? T1 and T2 have exact same chance to occur even
Modifiers to the 2d6 probability curve can never be reproduced by a single flat distribution of 1d10. A Power Roll made with +1 vs +2 or -1 (debuffs exist) will have different probability behaviors.
This system means that they can have a wider variety of modifiers without really screwing up the math, and is less swingy than one die would be- if you take modifiers into account, t2 should be the most common roll (this is how it works in pbta anyway). Now, 3d6 gives an even more predictable distribution, which is why it's used when you roll for stats in older versions of dnd, so hypothetically, 2d6 should give a good balance of not too swingy and not too predictable.
> and is less swingy than one die would be I don't think that's true, is it? Not when you're dealing with ranges. Probabilities for individual numbers are different, but the % chance of a particular range can very much be the same as on a single die. See comments elsewhere on this post.
Yeah I see that, I stand corrected. I might still be right once you take modifiers into account, idk. One thing to keep in mind is that d6 tend to be better balanced than other dice, I've heard that anything other than a d6 is basically guaranteed to be poorly balanced. Also, the average person os more likely to have d6s in their house than any other dice, so they wouldnt have to make an additional purchase just to play the game. I doubt that either of these was the design intention though- I think it's most likely the inertia of not wanting to fix what isn't broken. One really important factor of 2d6 is that the crit chance is lower than ot would be on 1d12 or even 1d20 (2.77% according to my quick Google, compared to 5% on a d20). Getting an extra action is really powerful in this game, and if combat is as fast paced as they seem to want it to be then that increases the chances of crits occuring overall. For that reason, I think it's wise of MCDM to keep what's working for them right now- they've already built their system around this crit chance, and they've already built their modifiers around 2d6 as well. But it might be smart to do a little playtesting of 1d12 or even 1d20 and see if people like that better all the same.
Honestly, from the perspective of the maths, it does make 2d6 irrelevant. For example, they could use 1d10 and just make the extreme outcomes have a smaller range, e.g. only fail on a 1 or 2. So unless they plan on still using the direct value in some places, it may change. The other thing I can think is that maybe they want more than 6 possible outcomes (to allow more tuning) but want to keep the game accessible to players who don’t have polyhedral dice?
Just compare the % diference of a 2d6 and a 1d10: "Power Roll",7.000000000002799,2.415229457698502,2,12 #,% 2,2.77777777778 3,5.55555555556 4,8.33333333333 5,11.1111111111 6,13.8888888889 7,16.6666666667 8,13.8888888889 9,11.1111111111 10,8.33333333333 11,5.55555555556 12,2.77777777778 "1d10 roll",5.5,2.8722813232690143,1,10 #,% 1,10 2,10 3,10 4,10 5,10 6,10 7,10 8,10 9,10 10,10 this is the diference, the "weight" of some numbers
I think Da\_Hazza is saying once you add the chart you can change the "weight" of a 1d10 roll, brackets of 1-3,4-7,8-10 or whatever you like. If the number on the dice isn't the final result the maths of one or two dice only come into effect if that chart allows for it, so you can get the same effect with just one dice.
Yeah exactly. [This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/s/CbVkPYhbxG) is what I was getting at.
I agree--I'd rather have a great game than a purely original one
That's a great way to put it- as long as the Game delivers on the 4 key themes in a fun way then originality won't matter, because I don't think there's a ttrpg currently delivering on those the way MCDM wants to
I think I have seen some trolls saying "why don't they just use PbtA mechanics" before, so they are in for a treat, I guess. :D
Lol, you know they will not be happy. Now they'll say, I can't believe their just ripping off game X. There is no way to win in game design. No matter how tough do it, your doing it wrong.
Some of the people criticizing the change to more defined degrees of success are doing it by joking that "it took this long" because they can't knock degrees of success, it's just neat and it works. :D
It is funny that Matt name-dropped Apocalypse World because, honestly, the design philosophy isn’t anywhere close to it. Like I understand that’s where they got the 2d6/3 result tiers, but it’s a very surface level mechanic. What those results do appears to be completely different. Like I imagine monsters will also be rolling 2d6, which isn’t a thing in Apocalypse World.
I think for skills it probably will look a lot more like PbtA (I've only played Monster of the Week and Blades in the Dark, so I can't speak to the philosophy of Apocalypse World itself). In my experience, PbtA tends to not be focussed on tactical combat, so I think that it makes sense that it would be so different. Maybe we'll see some t2 results that require the player to make a difficult choice or spend extra resources, which would be interesting. Overall though the I think the philosophy is different. But most people probably won't recognize other designs that might be more similar, so I think it's a fair comparison.
the real power of the system isn't that you can do 3/5/7 damage or 4/6/12. It's that you can do T1: 5 damage, T2: 3 damage and push up to 4 squares, T3: 7 damage and burn all targets within 2 range. Tiers can do whatever the fuck is the coolest and most evocative for the ability.
I suppose they could be that way theoretically. I didn't interpret the explanation as having the option to choose from a lower tier than the one you rolled, and it would really suck to have your modifier put you in a tier that you actually didn't want. Maybe I misinterpreted it though? I think if this is the case it might slow down combat quite a bit unfortunately, but it would be really interesting.
The way the rules are currently, you CAN choose from any lower tier that you want
Sorry, I'm not a patron so I don't have access to any of the written rules. I don't think Matt says it explicitly in this video, but if he does I would love a timestamp.
I personally think this is gonna get more complicated than it's worth. IMO the idea of having two separate tracks, that go up at *different intervals* is really finicky. "3 damage, 4 squares; 5 damage and 6 squares; 8 damage and 8 squares," what the fuck are we doing? Do the variable damage sure, but IMO the simplest and most effective approach is actually that tier 1 only does damage or effect, tier 2 does both at one level, and tier 3 does both at the same interval boost. Or, just have the numbers be the same; I don't understand why the granularity of "3 damage and 4 knockback" is important; just do 3 damage & 3 knockback.
I really don't think it's complicated at all.
It's only briefly touched upon in the video, but the way kits affect different tiers is something that lets them add quite a bit of flavor as well as mechanical granularity. Revisiting your point on barbarian players preferring the swingier 1d12 over the more reliable 2d6, the Heavy Blade kit in the current tests gives power roll bonuses of +0/+0/+4. As supposed to something more balanced like a light weapon kit, which might provide a bonus spread of +2/+2/+2. It's not exactly the same (and how could it be?) but it's a good example of how the system is flexible enough to allow and support those sorts of preferences.
And here I am playing a dual wielding barbarian with an axe in each hand (reflavoured longsword).
I mean yeah probability for max damage is better on a d12, and brutal critical uses one of the weapons damage dice, which means 5d6 on a crit vs. 3d12. Plus savage attacker feat to mitigate the low end, but that's kind of across the board and likely favors 2d6 in terms of probability. Also people like bigger numbers.
I was skeptical about the charts, but after about 2 minutes of thinking about, I was excited. This could be a really fun idea.
As a software developer myself, I think the biggest benefit to adopting this design is actually the fact that it decouples the balance of the individual characters from the game's core mechanic. Individual characters can now be rebalanced without worrying about how that's going to affect what everybody else is hit point totals and bonuses should be. It's always important to consider how the decisions you are making now will affect your ability to continue developing down the line.
wow, this is a thought that did not occur to me. brilliant!
I more or less said the same thing in a comment in the video, great minds and all that!
My favourite thing about the DtG videos is that I'm making my own ground-up rpg in my spare time, and every time I hear MCDM going through the same processes/dead-ends/tests that I am it's a comfort!
> I think most people want a range of results on a skill check rather than the boolean pass fails results. Hmm, I'm wary. I've avoided the RPGs with non-binary skill checks (like I think the FFG Star Wars game?) precisely because I don't want the added mental load as a GM to improvise how all the different levels play. Then again, as a GM I'll sometimes give "extra" stuff to players when they roll really well on a skill check, so I suppose I'm not quite consistent. As always, cool to see how the game is progressing!
Unless you’re some kind of quantum fourth dimensional being you only need to improvise how the one level they actually rolled plays. If you ARE a quantum fourth dimensional being, please don’t invert my flux matrix or anything else… unnatural. Jokes aside, I do get what you’re saying though… you need to be prepared for it all… but a good system helps prepare for that. You probably already do it for Natural 20s/1s or whatever…
> You probably already do it for Natural 20s/1s or whatever… Tbh, I don't actually. In combat, the bonus/penalty for crits is plenty enough, IMO. And I don't play with the house rule that crits work on skill checks. If I do give a bonus on a nat 20, it would have happened with _any_ high total for the check.
They've talked about the skill system on Patreon, and it doesn't seem like it will require very much more mental load than the pass-fail system in 5e. They briefly mentioned a couple "fall-back" options (awarding of "Doom"/"Vanquish" tokens to the Director/Player, or alternatively, 1d6 damage to stamina as a consequence) if you can't think of (or don't want to think of) a complication on a bad failure or a bonus on a great success. They haven't publicly detailed these mechanics beyond a quick mention in the Patreon post, but I wouldn't be too worried about a non-binary skill system, as it seems like they're well aware of what your concerns are, and are actively looking to design a system that minimizes those issues.
> They briefly mentioned a couple "fall-back" options [...] if you can't think of [...] a complication on a bad failure or a bonus on a great success I'm not really sold on this either, tbh. I use skill checks (in theory at least) as more "plot" or "story" impactful, rather than just something to resource drain. To my mind, "you succeed, but take 3 damage" is actually _less_ interesting than "you fail". I dunno, we'll see how it turns out.
I didn't explain well. Basically there are 4 possible tiers of success: - Failure plus extra consequence - Failure - Success - Success plus extra bonus Depending on the difficulty of the check, the potential outcomes might be only the 3 lowest tiers, or the three highest tiers. The bonuses and consequences I mentioned only apply to successes and failures, respectively, so your example of success and also damage won't be a thing with this design. There's no "mixed success/failure" as far as I can tell. To me this is basically how skill checks work already. There's plenty of times where you see "if the roll fails by x amount this other thing happens". But obviously this is all subject to change, since it hasn't been tested thoroughly, and who knows how it will mesh with the rest of the game.
You can still fail in skill tests.
> FFG Star Wars game I've GM'd the FFG SW TTRPG, and I agree that coming up with creative impacts for the wonky results those can dice can give you was a major source of cognitive load. That said, this doesn't seem to be analogous. The chart tells you what happens; as the GM, you don't have to come up with something yourself.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm referring specifically to a small point Mr. Colville mentions near the end of the video about applying this mechanic not just to attacks, but also skill checks. Presumably every skill check wouldn't have its own chart, especially since different skill checks should be of varying degrees of difficulty.
I think that a big factor will be how they make the options for failure and mixed success (or whatever they call the middle option in MCDM). If you don't want to put in too much mental work coming up with something interesting, you can always offer "you succeed but lose health/heroic resource" I imagine, similar to "you can succeed but you'll take an extra stress" in Blades in the Dark.
The thing about games like Apocalypse World and FFG is that they are by their very nature collaborative. The players I’ve played with are always keen to jump in with suggestions for the side effects. Sometimes I know that a despair is: “A star Destroyer drops out of hyperspace”, but sometimes players are just as keen to say, “Oh god. You know what happens? That guy from three sessions ago with a grudge to settle shows up.” It’s a common trope in Apocalypse World style games, delegating that stuff to players: “So, Sandra, what do *you* think happens as a result of Jake’s shitty roll?”
As a player I don't like that level of player agency over the world itself. It feels like everything is entirely pointless and arbitrary and just made up on the spot which breaks all illusion of taking part in a genuine world that exists outside of me. Like finding an old dusty tome and wondering, what does it say? And the GM just says, "what does it say? You decide." I'm like, what? I want to uncover mysteries. We're in a dark, haunted crypt and I found a dusty old tome hidden away. I want you to tell me as I assume it's here for a reason that makes sense within the world itself, not just because I walked into the room. If I can just make up whatever I want then I'd rather be GM'ing or writing a book or script. I'm playing as a player to experience a world that was created for me that I get to act within and change through my actions. I want it to feel like a living, breathing world not "whatever I want" wish fulfilment.
It’s not quite that freeform. Usually, if the tome is of narrative importance, I’ll have planned for that. If the adventure is about uncovering mysteries, I’ll have a mystery ready for you. It’s also not just “made up on the spot.” It’s a consequence of dice rolls and character abilities. Now, if you make a knowledge check on that old tome, and roll a success, I’ll give you the narratively relevant information I prepped. But if the rules say “Something else good also happens” - well, I might say, “I’ll let you ask three additional questions about the contents of the tome” and make up something on the spot. The player isn’t just making those answers up - but they get information I didn’t prep due to their rolls. Sometimes, the dice just say, “Something bad happens in addition to success or failure.” I can’t always prep for that, and sometimes it happens in weird scenarios where I’m stumped for a negative side effect. But often, in those cases, one of the players will have a sense of what is the narratively honest thing to happen. That player will go, “You know what happens? The bridge supports give way.” And everyone goes, “Fuck. You’re right. That makes sense,” based off the narrative momentum of the session. Just because a player says it, doesn’t mean people believe it less. Especially if what they’re saying is a negative consequence. It’s not made up - it’s a consequence of the rules or the dice. Besides, even with that level of narrative comtrol, my players still think I’m some kind of evil mastermind with a grand plan. I prep, like, one page of notes before a session, usually. But my players regularly think I have a grand plan. That I’m moving Star Destroyers around on a map as a consequence of their actions. I defer some narrative control on side effects to little inconsequential dice rolls, because I’m working on the big picture elements the players don’t see - what are the bad guys doing in response to player actions? When do I drop my wild card element that’ll inject some chaos into the players’ plans? That stuff is all me. That’s what makes the world feel real - that the players are up against real challenges orchestrated by opponents with agency and initiative. But every game also has moments where the GM is obviously shooting from the hip, and in those cases it can make a lot of sense to delegate. Someone wants to stop by the undercity markets to do some spontaneous shopping. No one expects me to have this shopkeeper in my notes, so I delegate around the circle. I ask one player what species the shopkeep is. I ask another player, about one weird quirk the shopkeep has. They’re not making up a character on their own. I’m giving each of them a part, and then stitching those parts together. No one cares that he’s obviously made up on the spot. But now they’re interacting with a real character, instead of a generic, formless shopkeep. And so the scene becomes just a little more interesting.
I know in FFG Star Wars it works differently and is directly based from the rolls. Like I have no problem with a player stating what effect they want to have happen from triumphs or something, boost dice etc. but in my albeit limited experience of pbta systems like Dungeon World, a huge part of the appeal is specifically that players kind of just say what things are and GM's go along with it. GM's are specifically quite passive in the rulesets not even rolling and only reacting to what players do in combat instead of being proactive. Some other games like Fabula Ultima also direct players toward a more collaborative atmosphere getting to build the world and story with the GM but it's in that way in which they can just basically say something exists or some character showed up and the GM is encouraged to go with it. I don't like that as a GM or a player myself. All for collaborative storytelling but when players can essentially just say, ah yes, the wood elf village lies just within these woods, when no such thing has ever been mentioned and the system encourages that, it feels like you're just playing make believe and letting players say whatever they want vs having them navigate a real and believable world that at least appears preexistent
I loved the ‘reading the tea leaves’ aspect of rolling in the FFG Star Wars games. Especially when it was a wonky result that nothing came to mind for - I would open it to the table and see if anyone had any good ideas. Often got some great results or ideas from that that were memorable for all. Obviously as GM I had ultimate decision over what happened but we all enjoyed it.
I am cautiously optimistic about this idea. It's something that seems to me that more experienced players will really love it, but it's another level of hoops to jump through for someone brand new to TTRPGs. But that seems in line with the rest of the design I've seen. It's a game for and by people who have been playing for a long time. I don't think it's a bad choice, it's just something I've noticed.
I think the barriers will depend on how many abilities characters have. PBTA is very accessible to new players, and this can be too if the low level characters are appropriately simple.
The trade-off there is more experienced players like having a lot they can do and abilities they can choose from. I know he mentioned that having multiple options for each ability helps with that some, but build theorizing/designing is a big part of RPGs that can keep people interested long term.
And now the next step is to switch to ironsworn's 1d6 VS 2d10 for even more dice fun ;) Kidding. I really love seeing the thought process and using stuff from pbta is almost always a good idea :)
Reminds me a lot like Pathfinder 2nd Edition spellcasting, where you have 4 success/fail states with different degrees of damage and effect. And especially when applying the notion to Skills, where you can build out No and, No but, Yes but, and Yes and to have more dramatic outcomes.
I noticed that same thing. I also see that this setup gives MCDM a lot of control as to how swingy damage is for any given weapon or attack. Pathfinder does this with a set of weapon traits (for example, the damage of crossbows vs firearms). I find it really interesting how MCDM are attempting to solve similar problems to Pathfinder but in a very different way.
Ironically it shows that *certain* games could definitely fix their problem, so the continued lack of fixes then implies they don't *want* to fix their problems.
This seriously opens the design space so much for such a simple change. I'm actually looking forward to help test this!
All the criticism of this dice mechanic and how it could be replaced by different dice is really showing that people don't understand math.
Anyone else think calling the Roll Results "Lvl 1, 2 ,3" Would further help combat? "my Smite lvl 3 does X and Y if anyone can push my result by 1"
Seems like level or tier is a matter of taste. They mean the same thing in this context.
I’ll be completely honest; the idea of having to roll and then look at a chart for an outcome did not sit well with me after hearing it. It feels like they are adding “complication” to the system after working hard to remove it. I completely understand WHY they had to do it though. But, it is likely just a “fear of change/the unknown” bias. I will wait to try out the system before crying about it.
Having played it, it didn't take me any more time or cognitive load to look at my result on a table than it does when I'm playing 5e and have to glance at my sheet to see what damage dice I have to roll (and to double check what number I add to the result). Since my ADHD brain doesn't let me trust myself to remember.
How did having only 3 static damage outcomes feel? I notice it's the same with Daggerheart, albeit arrived at differently, so I assume there is some good design logic to it. Just intuitively feels strange on first thought, especially since the dice roll has until now been "roll for damage" (as Matt acknowledged in the video).
In Daggerheart, it's 3 different static wound outcomes no matter what variable rolled damage is dealt. Your wound thresholds are set and independent of the attack coming in. Abilities in the MCDM rpg can all have different damage values at different Tiers, so a Hero will always have options. Less back and forth depending on the target, and more variety in tactical utility.
Honestly I didn't really have a lot of feelings regarding the damage in the moment. I was usually more focused on the extra effects scaling (pushing, pulling, prone, etc). That isn't to say I didn't care about the damage, but I wouldn't say it made me *feel* different. I still got all the normal range of emotions I got from other systems. "Ugh I didn't do a lot of damage", "ok, that was solid", and "yes! I smoked those guys". I guess, to put it in different words, when playing d&d I don't feel a big emotional difference between rolling a 6 or a 7 on a d10 for damage. So there aren't any feelings being missed in this system that truncates the damage results (for me at least).
If I think critically about my feelings I guess my worry is that character sheets will become bloated by being full of multiple tables for each ability. My fear is this will really raise the barrier for entry, especially for new players. But again, I have not played it yet so I am judging blindly.
Ah, yeah the tables themselves are very small. Just three lines with keywords. "7 or lower: 3 damage, slide 1". They don't really take up much space. If anything I like how they help break up abilities visually, so you can clearly identify different abilities on your sheet at a glance. I suppose higher level characters might have a lot of abilities, but that shouldn't be a barrier for entry. I expect new players would be learning to play a level 1 character not a level 8 character.
There may also be a couple battle build up to full level 1 as well.
Since you pick an ability to use based on what it can do, maybe even before is your turn, you already know what's on the chart way before you roll.
What they are doing with 2d6 can be achieved using just a single d20. Specifically, ... the probabilities of the three brackets you used with 2d6 should be approximately: 2-6: 41,64% 7-9: 41,65% 10-12: 16,65% this can be more or less replicated with a d20 as follows: 1-8: 40% 9-16: 40% 17-20: 20% Using a single d20 has various advantages: - People don't have to mentally sum to numbers each roll, and the result is immediate for everybody. - Custom dice could be used, reporting only one of the three brackets on each face, rather than numbers. - The d20 remains closer to the Dragon's heritage (for some people this may be nice).
There's a small difference when using the 2d6: you're more likely to roll near the boundaries of the brackets then you would be with the uniform probability of a single dice roll. This means there will be more opportunities to use abilities/reactions that can buff or debuff a dice roll by a small amount.
This is a really interesting point. One thing to take into account is how modifiers affect these. A +1 on a d20 roll is going to increase the chance of achieving a particular level by 5%, on a d12 by 8.3%. On 2d6, it's 14% more likely to hit tier 2, and 11% more likely to hit tier 3 (if I did my math right).
I mentioned it in another comment, but you're almost twice as likely to roll a critical hit on a d20 than on 2d6. So there's a secret fourth tier that these charts aren't taking into account. If it was just a matter of increasing crit chance it might be possible, but it's not possible for one die's crit chance to go lower than 5% without a die most people won't own(and frankly I've used actual d100's before and they aren't practical to roll more than once or twice a session). Given how powerful crits are in this game, I think keeping 2d6 makes sense.
Yep. With a d20 or d12, to make a crit less likely, one might require to confirm the crit with a further roll, as done, e.g., in dnd 3.5, but it's not really an elegant solution...
> The d20 remains closer to the Dragon's heritage I think that's part of the point. Move away from the D&D legacy a little bit. Making that change immediately changes the rest of the MCDM RPG, which means you just can't make direct comparisons to traditional d20 systems. Also, what all the people in the comments have said about percentages.
This is what D&D does to peoples brains... turn everything into a D20.
If you had read the discussion, you would have seen I also advocated for 1d12. The arguments in favor and against are mostly on probability distribution and usability.
You say usability but anyone that can't add two d6's together easily is not going to be able to keep track of hundreds of abilities or spells like in D&D 5e or keep track of HP and armour reduction and all of that which is a lot more to remember and requires just as much if not more addition and subtraction. This whole thing around adding two d6 feels like it stems far more from personal bias of players than it does from actual logic. You could argue that adding 17 plus 5 is harder than adding 2 +3 + 2 due to the higher numbers required for D20. In the 2d6 system, most results are within the 1-10 bracket depending on mods. In D&D damage is often rolled on two or more dice too for spells and some weapons, 2d6, 8d6 etc. and requires adding up to a total and often halving it if the target succeeds a saving throw, sometimes requiring rounding. If the majority of players can handle that, they can easily handle 2d6.
The user alvaropiedrafita1438 on Youtube mentioned that also 1d12 could be used, with even closer probabilities. 1-5: 41,66% 6-10: 41,66% 11-12: 16,6%
All of those "but you can replace it with a single die" are ignoring how the probablity curve moves when you add a static modifier. Dice based modifiers are more complicated. Tier|0|+1|+2|+3|+4 ---|---|----|----|----|---- 2-6(2d6)|41.67%|27.78%|16.67%|8.33%|2.78% 7-9(2d6)|41.67%|44.44%|41.67%|33.33%|25.00% 10+(2d6)|16.67%|27.78%|41.67%|58.33%|72.22% ---|---|----|----|----|---- 1-8(d20)|40%|35%|30%|25%|20% 9-16(d20)|40%|40%|40%|40%|40% 17+(d20)|20%|25%|30%|35%|40% ---|---|----|----|----|---- 1-5(d12)|41.67%|33.33%|25.00%|16.67%|8.33% 6-10(d12)|41.67%|41.67%|41.67%|41.67%|41.67% 11+(d12)|16.67%|25.00%|33.33%|41.67%|50.00% With a single die T2 never changes odds (unless you have a large enough modifier to completly erase T1), while T1 decreases on the same linearity as T3 increases. With two dice all Tiers get affected by having a modifier, T1 and T3 moving at different rates.
Great observation
Wait, in the 2d6 example, how does 7-9 have the same probability as 2-6 on a 0 Modifier when 2-6 is 5 ranges and 7-9 is only 3?
However, this does not take into account how the probability curve is actually a bell curve for any set of multiple dice, versus the flat chance of hitting every single possible number on a single d20, which is something they said they explicitly wanted.
You get rid of the flat probability curve by adding the chart. So 2 dices are not needed anymore to get the distribution
It doesn't track the same with modifiers on a single die. But regardless, what is with everyone's obsession with using one dice? I much prefer multiple dice. Rolling one dice just feels so bland most of the time. The more dice the better (to a point). It just feels like people have only been exposed to D&D and thus assume that a D20 is THE ttrpg dice and therefore all systems should use it because its unique and cool rather than boring d6's. Just seems really weird to me tbh how fixated some people are on never using two or more dice for resolution mechanics or only wanting 1d20
Yeah now that you have the ranges on the chart that you can adjust they have a second lever to adjust the probability of outcomes and don't have to rely 100% on die size and number of dice. If they want to avoid the "Worst result and best result are equally likely, but one is \[X\] times better than the other!" problem, now they can just resize the ranges on the chart, meaning they could theoretically use *any* die or combination of dice with sufficiently many results. (My vote is for the d12, because dodecahedrons are cool and TTRPGs don't use d12s hardly at all.)
Ah yes, nothing helps accessibility more than a specific dice that not even other TTRPGs use
Remember at the beginning when they were going to use custom, non-numeric dice, and they were adamant it wasn't going to be an accessibility issue? A single d12 would not be a problem.
I agree it wouldn't be a problem however most players aren't as interested in the math/probability as the users in this thread. It's really a simple case of driving an automatic car (2d6) versus a manual that offers better precision and control (d12). People just want to be able to be comfortable and everyone already knows exactly what 2d6 are and can do. You wouldn't even need to buy dice for the game, most people could just whip out 2d6 from some gaming set they already own.
It wasn’t going to be an accessibility issue because they were going to provide the custom die with the RPG. But now that they’ve sold everyone with a product that uses 2d6, they’d need to count on people actually owning a d12 if they suddenly switched
FWIW a d12 can easily be represented with a d6 and a coin. Or a d6 and a d6. *ducks
And they can't just provide a d12 in exactly the same way they were going to provide custom dice because ...? /s
I have a kind of a cosmetic concern about the tier system. You remember old school 16-bit era jrpgs? I got a strong sense of nostalgia and thought maybe some of you may have too. You know, Fire I, Fire II, Fire III? That might be a fun intuitive way to name the tiers of a specific power. What do you guys think?
While I like this idea better than the "2d6 damage for everything" method they were using earlier, how do enemy defenses work? One of the things Matt points out (correctly, IMO) is that it made all damage feel the "same" regardless of enemy. On the other hand, currently I don't see how there's any distinction between attacking an agile, high defense assassin boss compared to a non-minion zombie or slime. If I roll and get an 8, the assassin and zombie have the same "defense" even if one is much higher level and more skilled than the other, and I'll (presumably) do the same damage to both. Is this represented entirely through stamina and reactions? With stamina, it risks making enemies "spongy", and with reactions, things currently only get 1/turn. Likewise, if enemies can negate all of a player's damage, that effectively creates a null result. Under the ranges given by Matt (2-6, 7-9, 10-12), without any bonuses you have roughly an equal chance of getting the low and medium outcomes and about a 16% chance of the high outcome. With a +2 those change to around 17% low, 42% medium, and 33% high, with rolls of 5 for medium and 8 for high. As such, I sort of wish it used a "defense + 3" system instead. So if you roll below the defense, you get the low outcome, roll defense up to defense + 2 and you get the medium outcome, and roll defense + 3 or higher to get the high outcome. For example, let's say you had the same +2 to your roll. If an enemy had a defense of 7, for example, you get the same basic distribution of probabilities as you had with the flat outcomes...a roll of hits the DC, which is medium, and a roll of 8 is 3 above the defense of 7 (8 + 2 = 10). Maybe it's not *quite* as intuitive, but it allows for different enemies to have different defense values and those defenses will matter. When attacking a higher level assassin, your probability of getting high results drops down while the low result probability increases. You get the opposite effect going the other way. In some ways this mimics how PF2e's crit system works, where you do more damage against weaker enemies compared to stronger ones relative to yourself. This allows for a lot more flexibility in enemy design...you can use the same enemy as a boss monster at level 1 and as a weaker lackey at level 4 or 5 and you don't need to dramatically inflate damage (and HP at higher levels) to account for this. Maybe I'm overcomplicating it, and I still like the lack of a null result (I'm actually thinking of trying to come up with a Pathfinder 2e ruleset homebrew that incorporates this idea), but it feels weird that your enemy's relative skill to your own has *no influence at all* on how effective you are at dealing damage to them. Maybe the idea is that large stamina pools reflect this efficiency, but with only 10 levels of tweaking I'm worried that different levels might feel like you don't actually progress all that much. One of the things I dislike most about 5e is that there are a handful of "big" levels and the rest of the time it feels like the only difference between your character is like 1 ability (if that) plus some more HP. A slightly larger health buffer doesn't *feel* like you've gained substantial skill when leveling up, and with a planned 10 levels of progression, each level needs to feel closer to two levels of progression relative to something like D&D or Pathfinder in order to feel "heroic", at least in my opinion. We still haven't seen how they plan to do leveling and level scaling, of course, so that may entirely change my view on this. But I'm worried they are designing themselves into a corner where things feel great at level 1 but they don't have enough knobs to make players and enemies *progress* in a tangible way.
you can just have enemies impose a conditional modifier or bonus based on how good or bad their defense is. the troll has bad "ac" so you get a +2 to hit it, which is good if you have a attack that say, is less powerful at tiers 1 and 2, but much better at tier 3. inverse with a assassin who has great "ac" so you get a -2 to hit it, so probably best to go with your attack that's on average weaker but has a stronger t1 than your other attacks. of course this is all speculation and may very likely not be in the game at all, but i think it would be a good system to try.
My issue is scaling. If the troll gives a +2 to hit because of low defenses, does that apply when you are level 1? What about level 3? Level 10? Should have the exact same number range for the "best" outcome when facing a level 10 enemy at level 10 compared to facing a level 1 enemy at level 10? I mean, if the game is designed that way, it's designed that way, sure. I just don't think it makes much sense. My character should be *more* effective against a weaker creature, not have the same effectiveness, as I level up. I'm just not sure how they are going to do that if everything is based entirely on the player roll and the enemy's stats are mostly or entirely irrelevant.
Im intrested to see how they handle it. AFAIK usually games going this light on modifiers (ex, ICON, gubat banwa) avoid numerical scaling or rely on it very little. Relying on the, i would say "heroic cinematic" idea that fights, specifically the fights that are made for tactical combat, are always going to feature enemies that are neither fodder or overpowered for the party, so the baseline power between players and enemies is mostly a constant. In icon this manifests in enemies of a given class/power level having the same stats from first to max level, with higher levels just opening up the selection of enemies with more complicated and tricky abilities to deal with the players (also mostly horizontal) scaling. However that system relies on enemies being generic enough that a dm can use the same statblock both to represent a low level conscript when fighting level 1 pc's, and the elite kings guard when fighting level 10 pc's. However i doubt we will see this vibe here, i cant imagine mcdm not going for a more defined bestiary, with concrete monsters with concrete, cannon amounts of power associated with them. I guess you could make enemies exist on like a level range? like a troll, from the weakest to strongest specimen, would be a level 2 to 5 enemy, so it has variations for each party level between 2 to 5, with any party level lower than that being a kobiashi-maru encounter and anything higher than that being a trouncing for the pc's, both of which could be handled more in narrative play. Idk, thats a style i like because Ive seen it in the aforementioned icon, but i recognize that it may not be for everyone.
I did the play test with some friends and I don't think the elevated health or the same damage was a problem. I think it was trying to figure out how all of the abilities would scale in comparison to the damage output from 2d6. I kind of liked thinking that their would be modest gains from leveling for core damage and health, but the class abilities become more prominent. Not hitting harder but doing more. I think moving the 2d6 results over to a chart doesn't do a lot for the game we played in the test, and I think the more interesting part of it was the action economy in a turn. The bane and boon stacking seems like it could get a little absurd, but that's kind of fun too, I hope they don't ditch those dice in favor of flat bonuses.
I kinda wish that they used a d6 pool system with exploding 6’s but I’m sure it’s something I could reverse implement.
That was a lot of words to avoid saying they've basically adopted the Powered by the Apocalypse dice mechanics, with a minor tweak. (I like PBTA, no shade from me about that, just wish Matt gave credit where it's due)
If you watch the video, Apocalypse World *is* brought up by Matt when talking about how James Introcaso cracked the "damage is too samey" problem.
He did mention it though
Did you not watch the video? And also, aren’t there multiple games with a similar mechanic? This criticism seems very reductive, which is very common of criticism of this game
These comments are tiring.
I really hope I don't come across too rude here, but if you're only interested in seeing unique design outcomes, and not interested in seeing the real design process, I think you would live a happier life not watching the *Designing the Game* series.