Is it the D&D killer?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
MCDMRPG
Is it the D&D killer?
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Yeah, definitely a 100%
Fatt Colville will be regarded as the second coming of Gygax by future generations
hasbro is the real dnd killer
mtg too
I'll tell you this the same way I used to tell people in Trade chat when they said such and such game (Warhammer Online and Wildstar, ffs) was the WoW killer.
>No game can kill WoW except WoW.
I've been proven completely right.
This guy gets it.
I've never heard of it. So probably not.
Has any more information come out about it?
artist needs an anatomy lesson. give me ai art any day.
There's nothing wrong with the anatomy
Look at the head. Its fricked up in all different ways.
your head is the one fricked up in all different ways
lots of people on this board still coping that better art than what is actually published in ttrpgs can be found any given day in /slop/
I'm not too familiar with Colville but just looking at this shit made me lose all hope for the project.
pretty much every single thing about this is gross
I thought this dude was a writer for most of his professional life
He has a team. He's not doing all the writing. Supposedly behind the scenes, the team can't agree on what the game should be and it shows.
Feel free to share more rumours, I don't know anything about this project, but I'd like to know more. It's never going to be my kind of game, but it's at least interesting to see how it turns out.
I just know what people said in the last thread I saw about this. You can check the Archive.
Yeah, but look at what he's worked on. It's games like Evolve and Mercenaries with just trash-tier writing
I appreciate the unfiltered stream of consciousness writing. I know most people just want succinct stat blocks but I find them boring as hell. These passages are a fun read, that is inarguable. The system itself though? I'm not really digging it.
>These passages are a fun read, that is inarguable
The frick it's inarguable. It's engaging, I'll give you that, but it gave me a headache and made me roll my eyes.
>It's engaging, I'll give you that
good, we're on the same page then
>ummm, Wow!
Cringe.
Quick overview of the racial abilities and they seem to be there only to remove serious negatives that could possibly come up in game.
>can see in the dark
An even more improved(worse) dark vision. He dumbed it down even more to avoid players feeling bad because dark vision isn't perfect.
>grounded
Not terrible tbh although I don't know how much 1 move is.
>runic carving
Frickin really bad.
>detect creatures
>gives light
>psychic communication
All these abilities are things players should want but instead of being locked behind a class or a spell it's just given as a racial. I'd hate to see what bullshit abilities other races get.
>All these abilities are things players should want but instead of being locked behind a class or a spell it's just given as a racial. I'd hate to see what bullshit abilities other races get.
I think they're kinda cool and I'm not against the flavor of having a rune carved on yourself to use them, but I'm not a huge fan of it being a standard racial ability, specially when there's so little variation.
I would make it so you can
>carve ANY stone surface with it, with a limit of 3 runes active for each surface or so (one per dwarf)
>include extra runic effects such as simple +hardness or +speed effects, or stuff like an eye rune that lets you see through it, etc
I know he probably wants to avoid option bloat but even just those changes would greatly expand on what dwarves can do and be instead of making every dwarf either a detector, a lamp or a telepath.
The three most important things a writer needs to remember are who is speaking, who they're speaking to, and why. All three of those change as Matt writes. Is it a human talking to another human? A dwarf talking to a human? A dwarf talking to a dwarf about something the dwarf already knows? Yes.
they're talking to (You), the player!
oh cool I didn't know Gearbox made TTRPGs
Like some of the concepts I see, especially in place of the stereotypical LotR/WHFB dwarf.
I understand that the stream-of-thought writing for the Dwarven account of things may be unusual, but I don't think it's out of keeping as a concept, to display their culture of bluntness.
>Only clueless humans call us dwarfs, we don't even know what that means.
>Continues to call his people dwarfs another 10 times on top of the 20 or so times he did prior to that statement
That is the writing level to expect from a veteran writer of games with breathtaking narratives like Evolve and Mercenaries.
I sense sarcasm in your post
I haven't used social media in over a decade and it very obvious now when I am reading something written by a social media user.
Holy frick that is obnoxious. Dropped.
I don't know if this is going to do well but I know for sure that it will have dedicated fans. It speaks to ADD kids in a way that will get them re-excited about things that they'd previously grown bored of.
>hit all the bullshit ESG and obnoxious troony writing bullet points possible
If he managed to make Dwarves this fricking bad I don't even want to read the rest. I hope this bankrupts him and he is harassed for it.
If it's invoking love/hate feelings rather than like/dislike/indifferent feelings, then I think the game is going to be more successful than you're hoping it will.
>progressive dwarves
No
Is unarmored AC 9 or 10?
does the game even have AC? I think everything auto-hits and armor just ups your Health, for real.
No? It's a 4e inspired fantasy game, while a lot of people don't even use minis. It's just another fantasy game for the pile. If D&D is killed it'll be by mismanagement.
games prob gonna be worse than the game that shill anon made, let alone be in any position to kill another game. Just play 4E if you want a tactical combat ttrpg.
Why do you care so much? Why does badwrongfun bother you?
Because there's a media cycle that magnifies the badwrongfun and marginalizes the goodrightfun
>D&D starts as underworld looter simulator
>modules start to focus on quests, newbies read the modules, assume D&D is about quests
>Paizo/D&D/Pathfinder start doing mega-adventures/adventure paths, newbies read them and assume D&D is about long terrible stories with bad setpiece combat
>Streamergays focus on le quirky stories with no failure and the DM as entertainer, newbies see these videos and think that's what D&D is about
>perhaps 10% of D&D players have played or even want to play the underworld looter simulator
And with each influx of newbies, the original idea gets drowned under a new deluge of shit. This is really applicable to any semi-popular RPG too, including WHFRP and WOD.
You know, you're not wrong. They're all different takes, and everyone is getting a different thing out of D&D, and every edition offers things that appeal to different people.
My intro to D&D was 1990s dungeon crawling videogames (eye of the beholder, dungeon hack). They're fine, but I'm pretty happy doing my dungeon crawling with videogames rather than tabletop. I come back to d&d for general purpose fantasy sandbox ttrpg gaming, using 1990s TSR setting books and novels to flesh out the world. That's not Gygax's d&d, and it's not Perkins' and Mearls' D&D, and not Andy Collins Rob Heinsoo D&D. It's either Greenwood and Dave Cook, or Greenwood and Monte Cook, with sandboxy DM philosophy ideas I added onto my own experiences, from the Alexandrian and the Escapist.
I'm not really looking for a dedicated dungeon looter, and the skirmish gamers mostly want minis combat, also not a survival dungeon looter, and the theatre kids want their rules light YouTuber games, also not a survival dungeon looter.
literal moronic wannabe grognard. people were doing all the shit you talked about from the start. One of the first things gygax supported was "make up your own shit" Lo and behold people started telling longform stories because guess what going on quests and building up a character was fun and that is what spurred writers to make modules/adventures no one fricking forced them to do it to lure in new people the hell?? Your getting super autistic for a ridiculous level of niche within a niche, its fine if you dont like the direction it took but for the love of christ just shut the hell up and go play OSR
Fact: gygax compared the act of role playing to children playing pretend or a man pretending to be a woman on stage.
Additional fact: mentzner described role playing as acting without a script
Additional fact: Holmes discussed doing voices and in character speech quirks.
Final fact: OSR grogs are afraid of looking silly when they pretend to be elespereth, CHA 18 elf so they play the games in a way the designers did not intend and just redefine role playing to mean a thing that they are comfortable with.
>RPGs went to shit when people started RPing instead of Ging
the frick are you talking about?
THE GAMES WERE BETTER WHEN THEY WERE PLAYED AND NOT WHEN PEOPLE JUST KEPT TALKING IN-CHARACTER TO ONE ANOTHER
It's not even going to be the D&D4e killer. But there's probably going to be something about it other anons making 4e inspired homebrew will poach for their own shit, so the devs wasting their money otherwise isn't a complete loss for the tactical combat focused rpg crowd.
It doesn't even have a name. Colville used to be okay but now he's proving he can't design his way out of a paper bag, which shouldn't be a surprise given all of the shitty video games he worked on too. He has fallen so far from the days of "The earth elemental steps on your head to make sure that you're dead" and has become obsessed with being liked by the popular California crowd.
I don't remember the specifics from when I looked up the known details, but I remember thinking that they took the abstractions of the game too far to the point that I remember thinking that roleplaying that would feel weird as shit since it's so disconected from the reality within the fiction, like it was some videogame system or something.
I could be completely wrong, I really don't remember the details, but maybe somebody else can comment on it.
It seems pretty good yeah
The fricking what, what is this?
An upcoming TTRPG made by a youtuber / 5e 3pp publisher, more inspired by 4e than anything. It does not sound like it will be my thing.
>An upcoming TTRPG made by a youtuber / 5e 3pp publisher, more inspired by 4e than anything
I don't think I've ever read a worst sentence before in terms of traditional games
Well that doesn't sound very good.
Jesus christ this can't be real.
It's slimming more fat off of D&D 5e, removing stuff like armor class, and just adding more hitpoints for instance.
5e already suffers from hitpoint bloat, though. Not to the same degree as early 4e, but still.
This sounds like you have a point until you see the damage output of 5e characters. 5e is balanced around a 3 round combat. Which is nice because I run Pathfinder right now and it's basically rocket tag except the PCs win anyway because they can walk around with buffs and slaughter an entire dungeon.
No. Even comical mismanagement by TSR didn't let WW kill D&D and comical mismanagement by WotC didn't let Paizo kill D&D. So comical mismanagement by Hasbro will not kill D&D either. Posting about D&D killers is cope on the same level as posting about "late stage" capitalism.
>MCDMRPG
McDonalds Magical Role-Playing Game?
The slop singularity has begun..
>McDonalds Magical Role-Playing Game?
Marvel Cinematic Dungeon Master Role-playing Game?
have they figured out their basic combat mechanic yet?
always hit
roll for dmg
if true that's a fricking hilarious conclusion to the mearls design goal of "missing bad, butterknifing brick wall good"
I mean they simplified D&D and removed any abstractions, and all that remains is rolling dice and choosing to attack, or throwing out some skill or ability. *tabletop RPGs*
I don't know why people who want to play story games don't just play them. Why play bad dnd knock offs instead of games designed to do what you want to do. Surely there aren't people who want their only mechanical interactions in a game to be 5e but worse.
Been thinking about this for a while. I think games of imagination, like RPGs, appeal to the mentality of having toys as a child. Your cool guy with a spring cannon in his arm is inherently cool, and then you make up stories around it. The toy is the fun part, the imagination is a framework for supporting it. If we apply that to RPGs maybe there's a whole demographic of players for whom the roleplay happens because they think the combat rules are cool. The roleplay is only there because it is a necessity to give gravitas to "firing the arm cannon".
Yeah except in this analogy the toy is a fifty foot hand cranked trebuchet, which they’re only using over the spring-loaded arm cannon because of trebuchet memes.
can't wait for some guy to get popular making youtube videos about this game and make his own TTRPG where you always do max damage because rolling low on your damage roll is unsatisfying
unironically an improvement, ngl
no half measures..
I want to get off Mr Bones' Wild Ride.
Need to keep the feel of rolling but remove the chance of failure
>this game use our proprietary dice, much more streamlined action oriented damage!
>D6 is 3,4,4,5,5,6
McDonald's Msomething RPG?
Where's the fast food references?
The author ate them.
>Is it the "___" killer?
No, and this is just a general truth. You can't really kill products like dnd, The only way that products like dnd will die is if they commit suicide.
So no it will not kill dnd, only dnd can kill itself.
So I don't know if one of the troony jannies is a Matt Coville patreon subscriber and got triggered by me referring to him as F-tt and has a word filter up or some shit, but he's a obese homosexual and his game is shit. His advice for game masters is generic shit that is irrelevant to anyone who has any experience besides rolling on lfg discords for the occasional game that falls apart after 2 sessions. I've listened to 2 or 3 of his videos cause they came up on auto play at work and I was bored so I listened and yeah he's a fricking moron. His advice for modifying encounters on the fly is basically "yeah write out stats that let your monsters do stuff on the fly, instead of just doing it" which is irrelevant and moronic.
His game design is reductionist and boring. "missing makes me cry so everyone always hits" as if DnD hit points weren't already a loose enough abstraction. DnD should have MORE missing if anything, not less. It shouldn't be such a big fricking deal. Stop playing games with turns that take 2 hours, put it in the fricking RULES that you get 30 seconds to resolve your turn, then go from there. That's a REAL innovation in game design. Start with THAT as your fricking design goal, at least when it comes to combat (as if this bullshit system will be anything more interesting for skills than MUH MARGIN OF SUCCESS roll stat plus skill standard issue slop). That Shadowdark bullshit used real life time as a game mechanic, and it made a million on Kickstarter despite being basic osr trash, so why not? Fricking Christ, flat damage would be better than auto hitting.
So this game is already prioritizing dopamine hit over anything else. It's not like it's even original either. Fricking Maze Rats had that autohit just roll for damage shit years ago. So what is F*tts game bringing to the table? Just like his DMing advice: jack shit.
Idk what the frick is up with moderation these days, but they seriously need an inquisition
>Shadowdark being basic osr trash
Its nuSR, or more accurately 5SR.
>roll stat plus skill standard issue slop
For someone that wants fast action resolution you seem to have a bone to pick with fast action resolution.
>For someone that wants fast action resolution you seem to have a bone to pick with fast action resolution.
Nice disingenuous response that shows you did not comprehend my post. I was specifically referring to combat. Combat, i.e. a procedure involving dozens of rolls. That can be sped up, not for the sake of getting it over with, but for the sake of minimizing the down time each player experiences between their turns. This is the ROOT CAUSE of the "wahhh missing bad" mentality, because it conflates "I missed" with "I wasted my turn" because DnD combat is so fricking easy that it isn't about whether you manuevered in a way to help your team win, or at least tried to hurt the enemy, but about your BUILD and how much you get to experience your BUILD and how individually successful YOU are. Barely anyone breathes a sign of relief after winning a DnD combat. That's fine, or weight of probability would work against them and games wouldn't last long. But the fact remains that this mentality is leading game design to a place of making games that are powerwanks for ADHD zoomers, as zoomers replace the playerbase and show why DnD is like an end stage Alzheimer's patient and sometimes it is better to just a bubble in the proverbial IV line than continue to throw good after bad with the state of the hobby deteriorating more and more.
>Nice disingenuous response that shows you did not comprehend my post.
Those two things aren't compatible.
> incomprehensible stream of consciousness.
Maybe the communication problem lies with you?
They are compatible. You knew you weren't fully reading my post so you replied to some tidbit knowing you lacked context.
Being into character building and theorycrafting isn't even a bad thing. But even if it was, the edition of DnD where character building has ever been the most important is 3e, which came out over 20 years ago.
It's not character builds that are the issue, it's the obsession with them and complete lack of perspective.
>This is the ROOT CAUSE of the "wahhh missing bad" mentality, because it conflates "I missed" with "I wasted my turn" because DnD combat is so fricking easy that it isn't about whether you manuevered in a way to help your team win, or at least tried to hurt the enemy, but about your BUILD and how much you get to experience your BUILD and how individually successful YOU are.
4e actually made tactical decisions and teamwork important enough that missing an attack is more acceptable since you likely have some resource to get a reroll/debuff/buff/drop a damaging zone/etc and thus still contribute to the fight, but people hated that.
Did it though? Rerolls don't count, since they still contribute towards "I must hit" state of affairs, they just give an extra chance. In the other cases, some abilities indeed created some tactical advantages, but most still were just attacks that sucked if they missed. You typically executed a single important action per turn, and if that action was an attack that failed, well sucks to be you. You either hit and contributed, or missed and did next to nothing.
Didn't 4e have AoO and making a monster flatfooted by surrounding it?
I am of the mind that "missing bad", which I have only encountered online and never in a irl table, mostly comes from the analysis paralysis the caster will inevitably experience on their turn.
Flatfooted only means that you're slightly helping some other party member not waste their turn when trying to attack.
AoO are a thing, but are basically an afterthought in terms of impact compared to regular abilities. Unreliable, too, since you need an enemy to do a specific thing.
4e does have a ton of reactions at higher levels, but they're automatic and, well, reactionary. Passive. There's little choice involved, and they bog the game down, honestly. And both reactions and AoO happen outside of your turn anyway.
Also what's with new game designers being so terminally online they get in fights with randos? The writer of Shadowdark straight up threw a tantrum at me on reddit because I said the game was bad and didn't fit OSR principles/didn't work well with classic adventures, and acted like someone saying it doesn't play well is libel or some shit. I'm some literally who and it is wild to see her getting pissed people pointed out that getting a bunch of youtubers to do a media blitz for her shit seems forced as hell
D E S I G N E R S get pissy when their darlings get criticized. Even when its derivative garbage they still put their effort into it and tie it to their identity/worth. The echo and hype chambers of a compartmentalizeable social sphere and specifically in the case of shadowbadobobado being pushed wouldn't help.
It's just how people are. Back when the barrier between audience and creator was sending letters, or waiting for a published article addressing the feedback, people had the time required to be professional. But when instantly replying is at your fingertips and you have been conditioned for decades to do just that, this is the result. Probably wont change.
Your first point is kind of moot as the intent behind Running the Game has explicitly been to get newbies to try DMing, so it doesn't have to be deep or particularly thoughtful, it is supposed to be surface level and easily taken in from a talking head video.
I think MC's game is a load of piss, but agree with this. Some people get unreasonably angry when teaching material isn't for their level. The guy plainly states it's to convert people interested in playing into people who actually play, and for that he's made a good video series. Like no shit it's surface level if you've already played RPGs for years.
It will be good for what it is, but not especially popular. The audience of 4e refugees that are interested in a different take on a similar concept just isn't that big. Most 4e people will stick with 4e.
>Is it the X killer?
No, OP, your Y will not kill X, they never do, its the internal incompetence that does
Yeah exactly. Tired of seeing "x will kill D&D". We've reached the point where D&D is so mainstream that the majority of players are fully casual, and will play D&D no matter what it does. The only thing that can kill D&D is RPGs falling out of mainstream, which I don't see happening for the next few years.
Never heard of and don't care, but DnD is the DnD killer.
>Thousands of games that claim to be "Halo Killers"
>All fail and Halo eventually kills itself
>Thousands of games that claim to be "CoD Killers"
>All fail and CoD eventually kills itself
>Thousands of games that claim to be "WoW Killers"
>All fail and WoW eventually kills itself
I am sensing a pattern
All this has happened before, and will all happen again.
The wheel of time turns..
REBEL ONE, ACTION
Don't think so. Right now, they'd have to do some massive, really massive marketing. You've got all these other games/game systems/game worlds out there. I believe it will become maybe a niche, like many others. Sure, there will be some interest, but with game books running $30 to $50 bucks a pop, it'll take a lot of interest.
Sure he raised a bunch of money on kickstarter, let's see how it fairs with real world economics.
Post a link to a pdf download or something, and I'll give my hot take
No but seriously
what is MCDM supposed to stand for? Is it something moronic like how xkcd doesn't stand for anything?
Matt Colville's Donger Mayhem
>Game's really called "Matthew Colville's [redacted] roleplaying game"
As an outsider, that sounds extremely self-fellating. If including his name is that necessary, he should at least put it as a subtitle
Fricking hopefully.
I'm not sure, but MC is also the initials of Matthew Colville, and I imagine the "DM" part relates to his youtube channel?
I assume it's "Dungeon Master" because that's what his channel was initially about. Heard it was a WIP name for the system that hasn't been changed yet, and they are bad at names. Either that or Death Muff.
Monkey Cum Dildo Monkey
My Chemical Doom Muffin
Matthew Colville Dicks Minors
Fatal: Matt Colville edition, you have to hang out with Epstein, but tactically
Matt Colville's Diabetes Medication
With a little googlefu, I found the backerkit page featuring it. Page 1 already compares it to other games, and an ":D" is used on the page just from a cursory glance. It might just be a more annoying text than what I'm writing right now
https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mcdm-productions/mcdm-rpg
Not just one :D, but three :Ds
If Pathfinder didn't kill D&D, nothing will.
D&D has died several times. When it does, it gets replaced win some other game that has its name and some holdovers but is a rather different game. Each time, it was the company that owned d&d at the time that did it.
>release of dragonlance.
>~2005 (fuzzy)
>release of 4e.
>release of 5e.
>Dec 2022.
Each death marked the end of a different game for its main demographic. Those players kept playing the dead game or started getting what they liked from non-d&d games instead. But it's the d&d owning company itself that did it each time.
>>Dec 2022.
the frick happened then?
Hasbro pissed off the YouTubers the zoom zooms like more than them by trying to steal the IP of anyone who published with the OGL over the past 20 years.
2005 is around the end of the 3e books based around 2e settings came out and just about everything after that was Andy Collins minis-centric 4e prototype encounter powers stuff. Its around when the stuff close to setting-centric non-minis-focused 3.0 type books ended. But it had a ~ because it was a fuzzy transition that started in about 2002 when silver marches didn't hit Hasbro's sales numbers (even though dollar per dollar it matched because FR books had a higher pricetag). 2005 is around when the shift to a 3.5 centered on minis was completed.
t. Played more 3.0 than 3.5, and thinks that with 3.5, the books got worse as the TSR people gradually left / had less influence.
3.0 and even early 3.5 had a lot of setting centric books that had grown out of its original attempt at being a 2e revision.
Which is to say, if you liked post-Gygaxian TSR setting heavy style d&d, you got new stuff to do that pretty regularly do that from 1e dragonlance up until ~2005, and you could do it with as&d1 or 2, or 3.0. Or early 3.5. 3.0 and 3.5 did lean more combat heavy, yes, but 3.0 was less minis focused and had a lot more setting content and less skirmish wargamey character beans than later 3.5 books.
The early 3.0 and 3.5 books showed a consistent lack of understanding of their own game. It's very hard to do worse than that.
>the good 3.0 and 3.5 books are the ones that "didn't understand their own game."
The people that "understood" 3.5 as a minis combat game just sucked the fun out of it. I'm there for the 2e-esque game with more character customisation. But yes, not all of their attempts at streamlining AD&D made it better, and making all your class features refresh to full after a nights rest, and the increased focus on increasingly fiddly combat over time, was a mistake, IMO.Similarly, the best 3e adventures (for your newbie DMs) came out before they "understood" it.
You can like the all-minis skirmish game interpretation of 3e. W/E. But ~2005 is around when they stopped making the books I was getting 3e for and started putting out all minis combat stuff I don't care about as much. Combat is fine, but I want it as like ~25% to ~33% of a session. Not the whole thing.
The problem is that from the very beginning 3E was truly fricking terrible at playing like AD&D. Literally, my group converted a campaign from 2E and at least two of the PCs, mine included, went to shit right away.
Yes, characters didn't cleanly convert, you wanted a build for your character in 3e. IMO they changed a bit too much. But that doesn't mean you have to go full minis obsession to use 3e.
Are you just not counting Eberron books as 'setting-heavy' content? The first book for that setting was released mid 2004 and they released like 14 books for it from 2005-2008 (More books than have been released for 5e in total)
Ebberon is not a 2e setting, so I was not including it in '2e setting books'.
But I've never played in a 3e game that used any Eberron books. I can't say I'm familiar with how much world building is in them and how much is just more combat build options.
There's a frickton of worldbuilding, it's pretty impressively autistic.
what happened in 2005? how was D&D killed and replaced then instead of when 3e came out?
I like the design philosophy, but the design that came out of that philosophy is not my cup of tea.
Caring about pacing, balance, game feel, progression, etc., are all good things. But the game they're making seems to be more of a tactical combat board game with an RPG wrapped around it, which is not something I am excited about.
Basically, the moment you introduce combat exclusive named abilities, I'm out.
What else would it be other than combat oriented? it's inspired by D&D.
It's also very easy to involve a large group of people in a fight, as opposed to a debate or a competitive sport with set contestants (especially when not all the players are lined up to partake in it)
I just personally prefer exploration and puzzle solving, so I like combat either completely abstracted, or so deadly and primitive that it's over quickly.
Early DnD falls in the latter category, so #notalldnd
What exactly is exploration and puzzle solving in a TTRPG, though?
is it informing the GM you want to go over here or there, roll a perception check? or does he describe some kind of device you can then inform him you want to interact with?
is puzzle solving a completely GM concocted series of interactions, such as blocks with inscriptions, or various levers?
I genuinely don't understand how exploration or puzzle solving is any different from how D&D might handle it, inbetween combat encounters.
Agreed.
NTA but Anon clearly said they prefer exploration and puzzles over combat, not "exploration and puzzles over dnd exploration and puzzles". Dnd 3 through 5 have been heavily focused on combat over exploration and puzzles, ADND was not. Ergo Anon would prefer ADND style exploration and puzzles with brutal and quick combat, over a heavily combat focused game where exploration and puzzles are only the means by which you get to the combat.
And to add to that, I agree with Anon, MCDM looks like it's a video game in pnp form. Not interested.
>Dnd 3 through 5 have been heavily focused on combat
Every edition of D&D is about combat, that's what it's ABOUT. In earlier editions there's incentive to avoid encounters at low level, but that has always tapered off as characters leveled up.
I asked what those puzzles, and what the exploration in TTRPGs even is?
>In earlier editions there's incentive to avoid encounters at low level, but that has always tapered off as characters leveled up.
I suppose that's fair, but just because it ends wi-
>what the exploration in TTRPGs even is?
Na you're right, man, you win. Don't know what I was thinking.
Because unless I'm mistaken, it's fairly simplistic riddles or the like a GM lays out and you mother may I until solved.
Are you not familiar with RPGs? Are you saying this from the perspective an outsider looking in?
I think everyone talks up how much they like puzzles and exploration, but it's all largely the same type of stuff repeatedly. There's more variety in combat encounters. There's actual rules and mechanics for those, to guide making and setting them up for players to experience. When you think about it, combat are peak puzzle design, at least in the right hands!
I think you shouldn't make so many assumptions about people you've never met. In the right hands anything can be a wonderful experience. You can enjoy combat without invalidating other peoples experiences with their preferred type of fun.
Example of a dungeon puzzle.
Takes 15 minutes to think and draw up, potentially generates hours of gameplay. Or could be cleverly solved in 10 minutes, depending on the party's equipment and the layout of the rest of the dungeon.
I'm not even against tactical combat per se, but if classes have combat-exclusive abilities with dynamic interactions and shit, that's just a bunch of combat-exclusive gameplay that you can't use outside of combat.
Compare something like "heroic strike, reduces enemy defense for the next 3 rounds, can be used once every 5 rounds" to a magic user spell. The latter can be used in any context, the former only in combat.
Ideally I'd prefer combat to not even be a separate "mode" of gameplay, and be completely diegetic just like the rest of the game, but I haven't found a way to do it right in old school dnd, since the combat mechanics are at the very heart of the system. In lieu of that I'm fine with simplistic, quick combat that doesn't take up much time.
Your example is a boulder trap?
so
-players see loot
-it's booby trapped with rolling rock
This kind of harkans back to my original mentions on the subject,
Puzzles tend to become very homogeneous very quickly in this hobby. Sort of a nothing new under the sun aspect.
Fairly simplistic exercises in a little bit of thought, that you are seeing if the GM will allow it to succeed. (as a puzzle and not a trap, there's likely no mechanics for such in a rulebook to reference and reach consensus)
Every rolling boulder situation is different depending on your party's equipment, classes, the layout of the rest of the dungeon, etc. etc.
Meanwhile, all combat in TTRPGs is easily solvable, because the mechanics are simple by necessity. And if combat mechanics are too rigidly defined, you can't even do "out of the box" stuff like using the environment and shit.
>Every rolling boulder situation is different depending on your party's equipment, classes, the layout of the rest of the dungeon, etc. etc.
>Meanwhile, all combat in TTRPGs is easily solvable
>the mechanics are simple by necessity.
>can't even do "out of the box" stuff like using the environment and shit.
are you even hearing yourself?
you understand that shit is true about combat every time right?
every single time, when a boulder trap isn't even. it's a fricking boulder that rolls at the party, and they just narrate themselves running from it, and maybe make a skill dependent roll once.
How are you going to glorify a boulder trap, when combat is so fricking varied every time?
You don't have to run from the boulder. You don't have to trigger the boulder. You can avoid it, break it, teleport it away, teleport yourself away, trigger it from afar with a rope, hang over the boulder as it passes, etc. etc.
And depending on the above, the state of the dungeon and the party resources changes UNIQUELY DEPENDING ON EACH PUZZLE. The boulder exists in the same context as the rest of the game, it is not a separate self contained mini-game.
Meanwhile "tactical" combat systems always have the same set of outcomes, because none of the combat resources and abilities affect anything outside of combat, meaning those two systems are parallel.
None of the complexity of the combat system carries over to the rest of the game state, it's all just a meaningless time wasting mini-game. It can be a fun mini-game, but regardless of what happens in the combat itself, the only result is how much HP and class resource you have at the end of it. Variables that only matter for the next combat encounter before rest.
I don't think such a miniscule state change warrants more time and attention than a couple to hit and damage rolls.
I think you're failing to see the similarities in earnest. Combat doesn't play out the same way anymore than handling that boulder trap.
So if we were to follow your suggestions, if you overexert yourself during battle then you have less strength to dismantle the traps?
Using too many spells quickly tires the mage out, making him walk slower and thus affecting your progress for the day?
Failing to protect your food supply during combat can spell disaster for the expedition?
That does sound interesting.
(NTAYRT. SR4 does this, and I think SR5 did too.)
It's honestly fascinating how both of you are autistic to the exact same extent and in the exact same way and yet you're still talking past each other while completely mirroring each others' logic and arguments.
You're fricking moronic honestly. Combat is varied everytime. Much more than overcoming a boulder trap.
Okay at this point I actually just think you're samegayging.
>beating a level 3000 chessbot is easy, because the mechanics are simple by necessity
It doesn't matter if it's easy or hard, what's important is that it's superfluous.
Imagine if for every combat, you had to play a magic the gathering game against the opponent, and at the end, depending on some factors, damage, HP, and resources spent is determined.
Is MTG fun? Yes. Is it complex, varied, interesting? Yes.
But nothing that happens in this hypothetical MTG based combat system affects anything outside combat.
So you might as well have rolled some dice, determined damage, and been done with it.
You should try FATE. In the right hands it can really become everything you want from a ttrpg. You can keep it simple or make it more complex. Once our group switched to homebrew FATE, we were finally free from the clutches of our character sheets.
>What exactly is exploration
In older D&D editions, you didn't need to roll perception checks. What mattered was logistics like food and light. Wandering a dungeon and mapping it out were the bread and butter of old-school play.
>is puzzle solving a completely GM concocted series of interactions, such as blocks with inscriptions, or various levers?
Social interactions are puzzles, where you're trying to figure out how to get people to help with your aims. Political intrigue campaigns are basically just a series of puzzles when done right.
There is nothing preventing you from doing this in dnd today
They don't actively prevent it, but the rules disincentivize it due to the prevalence of skill checks. Looking around is replaced by rolling perception and social interactions get reduced to rolling persuasion.
Sounds like a user error. Looking around the surroundings and taking in what you see or hear doesn't call for a perception check. A perception check might be called for if it is to take notice of anything strange or out of place in an environment. It doesn't even have to be exactly what is out of immediate sight; just a "The book on the leftmost side of the middle shelf has an irregular baldness of dust, like it were wiped away with fingers" to show what could be a secret door upon pulling the book out as opposed to a, "You find a secret door" right off if the GM wants or doesn't.
The old way is for the GM to provide a clear and consistent description of the puzzle for the players to resolve with their wits, which is perfectly fine and valid. But the argument that it's less a test of the character and more a test of the player to solve the puzzle like that I feel has its merits.
I mean, if you want to run it the old fashioned way, you may need to give the players a heads-up, and then run them through a single adventure run that way to see if they like it or not.
The thing is, players shouldn't get to declare checks.
The DM does.
I agree. Something like a perception check works to get one out of a gridlock with a hint or two as to the nature of the puzzle, but the player ought to say, "Would my character have an idea of where to look?" and then the GM decides what's best.
>In older D&D editions, you didn't need to roll perception checks.
So there was no way to determine whether you're looking around was either fruitful or unsuccessful, that's the only difference.
You choose to look around, you roll dice to determine if your character finds anything or not.
>Social interactions are puzzles, Political intrigue campaigns are basically just a series of puzzles when done right.
They are, you determine what is best to be said or done, and you roll to determine success. If you can't reasonably convince someone, then there's nothing to be rolled on.
>So there was no way to determine whether you're looking around was either fruitful or unsuccessful
You've never played older editions, then. You ask specific questions and look around as if you were the character.
>If you can't reasonably convince someone, then there's nothing to be rolled on
And if you can reasonably convince them with your arguments, why would you roll?
NTAYRT
You agree persuade & similar skills should not exist then?
>You ask specific questions and look around as if you were the character.
>if you can reasonably convince them with your arguments, why would you roll?
to determine if it was successful or not, you seem to worship mother-may-i
"Mother may I" is code for "I don't have friends"
It means you're only able to do things that the DM says you can, literally not-codified in the rulebooks, not mechanically solvable.
I was speaking ironically, let me explain: Asking the GM for permission to do things is the foundation of RPGs, because the GM can at any point override any written material based on their own judgement call. This isn't an issue if the GM and players trust each other because in that case the GM will trust the players to not ask for something unreasonable, and the players can trust the GM to only override their rules-given abilities when it is contextually relevant. Like refusing someone to use a fire ability when they are under water. When you're hanging out with your friends no one is going to argue that because you will all trust each other to be working towards the same goal of having a good time.
A person holding on to their rule-given options so strongly as to violate this social contract is probably not a very fun person to be around, they probably have autism or some other developmental handicap that makes adherence to the rules more important than the outcome, and as a result they probably play with strangers. When someone says "Mother may I" is code for "I don't have friends", this is what they mean, they mean that you have misinterpreted what an RPG is and in doing so started to reveal things about yourself instead of about the topic of discussion. I hope this was elucidating, and that it encourages you to reflect on your goals for interact with others in RPGs.
I agree with the overarching premise of this, although not everything.
However, rather than go on about my disagreements, I will add to it.
You should outright trust your GM to make decisions that benefit the overall game, narrative, and enjoyment of the players. Those decisions at times being at odds with you, the player, is not the negation of agency, nor indicative of enmity on part of the GM. This may indeed be the case in the light of the totality of adjudications the GM has made (this has recently been the case in a game a close friend of mine is in), but it is a condemnation that wasn't, nor should be lightly made.
I believe you have the right to challenge the GM's judgments, albeit in a way that does not disrupt the game for others or undermine what is ultimately the GM's overall authority and prerogative. If you object so much to the GM's rulings, the responsible thing to do is leave the game, an option I have used myself more than once, with no ill will on any side.
We are all supposed to be rational adults, after all.
>Like refusing someone to use a fire ability when they are under water.
The rules cover this though. Obviously I prefer mechanics that are in the corebooks to asking about things in-game. It just feels more competently designed if the game demonstrates prescience and predictability/accountability.
I also like if it's possible to fail in interesting ways usually. If I can just talk my way around a game, it's not going to feel as satisfying as firstly theorizing a solution, and secondly rolling on its success.
>The rules cover this though
In which system? More importantly is that system where it is covered the same one used in the hypothetical example? Open your mind to possibilities outside your frame of reference.
The boulder trap?
Covilles game is just another on a long list of generic slop that will make a lot of money and be forgotten a year later by all but his most hardcore fans who will play it mostly out of lack of taste and weird para social obligation.
>tabletop truth
>14 subscribers
>4 videos
>highly autistic video names
>this was uploaded 50 minutes ago
Stop shilling your garbage here.
>Stop shilling your garbage here.
Same to you, Fatt.
This is a shill thread, created by you or one of your simps. If you're allowed to shill, so am I.
moron alert
We all know what you are, Tabletop Truth. You are a sad /misc/tard who hates anything that isn't his straight white male bubble.
And what is wrong with that?
Is there something of value in the world of gay black woman RPGs?
You've got it backwards. ALL Politicization of RPGs is shit. At my table, I don't care about skin tone or sexuality. We're here to play a fricking game, not debate the fall of the Aryan race or whatever.
NO POLITICS AT MY TABLE.
WE ARE HERE TO PLAY FALLOUT, PBTA, CYBERPUNK, SHADOWRUN, AND WARHAMMER, BECAUSE FANTASY IS AN ESCAPE FROM REALITY. WE WILL ONLY BE DISCUSSING WAR, FAMINE, DEESTRUCTION, AND THE FOLLY OF MAN, NOTHING POLITICAL LIKE GAY BLACK PEOPLE.
STOP PUTTING POLITICS IN RPGS
Shadowrun is inherently political you dumbass.
Every fricking game he listed is more or less political you autistic trog, he's being sarcastic.
I think there is an obvious gap between plotting to kidnap the idol daughter of some Renraku bigwig to force him to increase gacha pull rates and releasing incriminating evidence about the humanis ties of UCAS presidential candidate Ronald Truck. Most settings that aren't medieval fantasy involve political entities that are less stable than in our world and give a lot agency to the players to act on it, but it remains a fantasy. Politics will happen in all those games, but if you or your players can't leave the current election cycle out of your make believe, you need to either touch grass or get involved in some real political mobilization.
i dont know what games youre playing, but i just ban political discussion at my games in general
and no, "gay people existing" is not political
>I can shill too!
Do you make games?
what makes your games good?
If you are truly so much of a homosexual to compare 3.5 to B/X then you deserve to be laughed off of this board. Go be a moron somewhere else and stop engaging in money-grubbing tactics.
lmao his logo even has the SS symbol worked into it, what a cringe edgelord. How did four days pass without more people dunking on this pathetic shill.
Cringe channel
LMAO HE HAS A REDDIT TOO
https://old.reddit.com/user/tabletoptruth
https://twitter.com/Tabletop_Truth
This guy clearly suffers from anti-reality, a victim of his own cycle.
>/pol/shit
>complaining about freakshit
>complaining about session 0
>reddit
>twitter
Holy bingo Batman!
frick off shill
I've watched all of your videos. it's pathetic how all of your arguments boil down to:
>thing bad because I say so
or
>thing bad because muh libs
and I say this as someone who actually agrees with your conclusions.
This is the greatest youtube channel of all time, don't listen to the haters.
No, 4.25 will not kill 6e.
>leading figure is a black woman
Dead on arrival
What does MCDM stand for?
2400
Matt Colville Dungeon Master.
Matt Chew Dungeonmaster Man
>the MCDM rpg
>the thousand hundred and ten thousand rpg
>the 1,110,000 rpg
wtf?
isn't D five hundred?
frick me, you're right, I shitposted with great haste
Then it would be the 1,600 RPG right?
D is the alternative hentai board on Ganker, where girls with penises (called "futanari") are the staple
Over time the futanari on /d/ seem to have been mostly removed and replaced by traps.
Probably because over time, the ones who frequent the board began to identify as women yet lack the plumbing to be women, and so try to make themselves out to be attractive to other dudes that their buttholes are the same as a vegana or something