'I don't play games with an eceleb's name in the title, also buy an ad faggot.';

'Never heard of it or the alleged eceleb involved.';

'>>92605627
Because I don't want to play 4E but worse.';

'>>92605627
No its not, and no it doesn't.

Why not excited? Its shit and anyone who shills it eats shit.';

'>>92605627
What are the mechanics like?';

'>>92605627
Looks promising. I'm waiting for them to declare it's in an actual full playtest state before I try it because a lot of mechanics have come and been thrown out so far.

I've run short sprints through GURPS, Edge of the Empire, and Blades in the Dark but my group always wants to go back to 5e because it's what they know. I hope this'll be the one to get them off it. I will play ANY game, no matter how bad, to not play any more fucking 5e.

I also wish they'd give it a fucking name already';

'>>92605627
Kino is for movies and only movies. Literally short for "kinematograph" which is an older way of saying "cinema".';

'>>92605627
Not my kind of tone.

Heroic by default at level 1 and he says that a fighter not having magic makes them less interesting as he shakes his head in faux bewildered disbelief at someone wanting a non-magic fighter.

Nothing against mage knights, just not what I'm looking for.';

'>>92605627
>fixes every issue of 5e
It's not trying to be remotely similar to 5e.';

'>>92606147
Current version as far as I know has 4e-style PC encounter abilities and uses 2d10 for attacks and checks.

All attacks auto-hit but do low damage and not much else on a low roll. If you roll average on the 2d10, you'll do medium damage and get a bonus effect tied to the attack, like a fire spell lighting someone/thing on fire. If you roll really well or get a crit, your attack does higher damage and gets a big effect that can swing the tide of a fight.

Dev's streams/videos indicate the game will support small short old-school modules rather than big adventures and there's an emphasis on monster design and encounter design so that enemies all have at least 1 interesting trait that changes the battlefield. Seems like there will be a "DM Sheet" or a small few pages that has the condensed info for running 10+ different monsters on it so that the DM can run a complex combat as easily as the PCs can run their own characters. Essentially it seems like it will play with some more wargame-y elements compared to 5e (hypothetical design language like 'units' of enemies getting special abilities while their leader is alive or when 50% of them are still up)

Downsides I've seen mentioned are its similarities to 5e when it comes to skill checks and saves and how it seems to still be combat centric with few/no abilities tied directly to roleplaying (though some of them are evocatively described and can probably be used outside of combat) A 1 Str gnome can beat a 5 Str orc in an arm wrestle, etc etc.

So if the parts of 5e that I hate also bore you, it may not be great. I'm waiting until there's more playtest out to decide for certain.';

'>>92605627
I don't know if I'd say I'm excited, but checking in on it from time to time has certainly made me intrigued. Mechanically, it does look really interesting so far. It kinda reminds me of 3.5's willingness to codify and crunch, tables and all, mixed with the tight class design of 4e. At least going by what we've seen. And man, I'm so fucking ready for a game with polish that does what things like D&D sets out to do, but doesn't cave to being 'rules light' and genuinely drops all the tired garbage elements like Vancian spellcasting, moreso than things like SotDL do.

I don't like the art too much though. It's proficient, but not really my style. Too many overlapping geometric shapes.';

'>>92606378
Gay';

'>>92606283
It's German, you ding dong.

>>92605627
With the way they did dwarves, I can tell the writing will be insufferable and the lore is trying way too hard. Unless the system ends up being the best thing since sliced bread I'm not touching it.';

'>>92606562
>Insufferable setting-specific fluff text goes on as it will with 90% of games
>actual rules in clearly marked header, all in one spot, all coherent with relevant bonuses and no long fluffy paragraphs mixed into it
I don't see what's wrong with this. Is anybody that's not completely braindead really gonna read the lore on a page for Dwarves, of all things? It at least looks like the rules text is actually formatted to be on the same page as the picture of the dwarf for quick parsing through the book.';

'>>92606562
>weight but not size
>shove distance isnt tied to weight
It looks interesting and flavourful, theres definitely some oversights there though that my unpublished homebrew easily already solved so i get to be smug about it ';

'>>92605627
>fixes every issue of 5e
If you fixed all my issues with 5e you wouldn't have a game that people who want to play dnd will switch to';

'>>92606378
>All attacks auto-hit but do low damage and not much else on a low roll.
this makes no sense';

'>>92607048
Hit points are called 'stamina' and aren't treated as 'meat points' so it's more like every attack reduces your opponent's ability to avoid the next one until you finally land a strike and take them out of the fight at "0 hp"

Design-wise it's to remove 'no-impact' turns where players feel like they did basically nothing because the dice came up not in their favor.

It's not like every fight is the wolfenstein stab-off quick time event';

'>>92605627
Because I haven't heard of it before and I don't care at all, Mr. Shill.';

'>>92605627
Tactical sounds like it'd be at odds with cinematic.
Tactical Heroic is basically 4e, and Heroic Cinematic would probably be 5e with even less emphasis on resources , but what the fuck is Tactical Cinematic meant to be?
Careful positioning and ability usage is at odds with the sort of cinematic style that would probably prefer to not even use a battlemap or grid.

Not that this sort of schizophrenic design would be unusual for something trying to 'fix' 5e, which already has identity issues with trying to cater to too many styles of play at once, but really, they should just pick a lane.
Odds are the average 5e player doesn't even want something overly tactical. They want to point to their cool feature and explain how they kill all the enemies for free.';

'>>92606750
Sure, I can appreciate keeping crunch and fluff separate. But the fluff writing is awful and I do not believe that it will stay entirely out of the crunch. Also, people will want to run the default setting which has the awful fluff. The whole "We take a long view, we want to right wrongs, 300 years ago is 'brand new', but elves literally genociding the best of us a handful of generations back (at most) is water under the bridge." is really dumb. The line that goes "The dwarves reputation as excellent warriors--and, indeed, why Dwarves are best!" makes no fucking sense. They raised over $4,600,000 and this is the best they can put out? Like I said, the mechanics better be fucking amazing cause the fluff is shit. Fuck it, I hate how they handled dwarves so much. I get that everything is subjective, but if the goal was to get someone who plays dwarves at every conceivable opportunity to like their dwarves, they failed so fucking hard. They even lampshade it by saying "Oh, we aren't really dwarves, we're elementals", if that's the fucking case why not just make them elementals? Why fuck my expectations by calling them dwarves if they're not? They lampshade the elf thing, too. But if you're going to do that, why give them a reason to hate elves at all? If you're going to literally say "Humans make too much of this rivalry between dwarves and elves" then why fucking have the elves commit genocide on "the best" of your race. They obviously knew what people wanted when they wrote the dwarf page but got so fucking high on huffing their own farts that instead of doing that, they took a page from Neil Druckmann's book and really subverted my expectations. But expectations are expectations for a reason. Tropes are tropes for a reason. Virtually every single version of dwarves have beef with elves so that players can latch on to it. Also, art is subjective, but God damn that is an ugly fucking dwarf. Blue cheese looking ass mother fucker. I hate their dwarves so much.';

'>>92605627
Tactical Cinematic ... (let's all use TCHF to save characters :/). TCHF doesn't appeal to me at all because of over exposure to the "HF" part. I've watched the "Making the game" videos on youtube cause I like game design stuff, but the direction they're going with the game isn't for me.
The art style and overall aesthetic of the game is painfully generic "high fantasy" with elaborate ornate outfits that are designed to look cool to a consumer rather than be plausible for anyone to wear. The art is competent, but boring, like the art of a jigsaw puzzle. The PC's are conventionally attractive, youthful, have their faces clearly visible despite the immediate danger, weapons and armour are very obviously from a fantasy product, and the scenes portray a very boring kind of game imo: No blood, PC's charge valiantly into what should be extreme danger, multiple PC's shown using magic (meaning magic is in no way significant or special). Also a huge variety of races are shown, not a fan.
There's nothing about this game that gives it a unique identity to me. I reckon Matt Colville's face and name are doing the majority of the marketing, but that doesn't make a good product.
>>92606352
So it does fix it :P
>>92606562
Lol I hate that I have to see that dwarf everytime the MCDM rpg is brought up.';

'>>92607150
>what the fuck is Tactical Cinematic meant to be?
Ocean's eleven.
Which I'm sure is not what the game is.';

'>>92605819
Literally this, why the fuck i should play fat colville game over 4e or strike!? Assuming i want to run a heavy skirmish game with dissociated mechanics to begin with.
>Inb4 those are dead games
Rope yourself consoomer.';

'>>92607048
It honestly makes more sense than hit/miss. D&D and its clones have always had an incongruence between the assumption that hit points are not meat points and the fact that when you do damage you are referred to as 'hitting'. It's clunky unintuitive backward logic, and it starts clashing with itself as soon as you start thinking about it. Like, for example, if hit points aren't meat points (and they aren't, because if they were that would be ridiculous) and sometimes a 'hit' is actually a miss that just hits the target's shield or makes them dodge and use energy... then what's the difference between a hit or a miss at all? Why do shields grant AC if narratively, both hitting a target when they have lots of hit points, or missing a target, are often treated as striking their shield? Why does Dexterity grant AC if at high hit points, every hit you take is assumed to be a near miss anyway? It's a blurry soup that can be rolled with by a good and descriptive DM, but can never really be untangled.

The different levels of effectiveness to attacks rather than just hit/miss honestly make it much easier to imagine how a character is attacking a target to varying levels of success. And it removes all these competing factors that ultimately do nothing but detract from the fantasy of the game.';

'Stop shilling your trash.';

'>>92606283
Nope, it means good.';

'>>92606336
You don't want a non magic fighter.';

'>>92606750
Yes, obviously. Why wouldn't they?';

'>>92605627
Shitty game, pretentious gm, faggy fans.

It'd be pure kino to have the OP choke on the celebrity choad and asphyxiate while he types an incomprehensible message on his beloved chan thread, for which he gets banned.';

'>>92610467
Nope, you're a illiterate faggot

.>>92606562
>It's German, you ding dong.
German for... "Movie theater" you Verdammter Blödsinn.';

'>>92605627
It patently does not solve every issue of 5e and this can be effortlessly proven.
Point one: it exists.';

'>>92610552
Nope, it means good. Usage is meaning.';

'>>92605627
>pure kino
You don't know the meaning of or the proper usage of the word. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>fixes 5e
I don't want to see 5e "fixed", because 5e is shit. It's lite trying to whittle shit into a lute, instead of starting with a solid piece of wood.
>MC
Fatt Colville is a fucking retard. His name alone is enough to make me lose interest immediately.
>DM
A D&D-exclusive title usage that underlines what this actually is. Garbage. Not even Pathfinder did this before Paizuri went full retard.

>>92606283
An even bigger retard than OP.';

'>>92610552
>uuh uuh I'll pretend to be German!
>Germans randomly capitalize things, right?!
>v-v-Verdammter b-Blödsinn!
Fucking reject.';

'>>92606378
>All attacks auto-hit
So it's just a DPS race? Cool, can't wait for everyone to min-max their minimum damage so the rolls don't matter.';

'>>92611289
kino means good.';

'>>92611433
It's a damage race regardless.';

'>>92611309
it means movie theater, retard.';

'>>92607319
>"We take a long view, we want to right wrongs, 300 years ago is 'brand new', but elves literally genociding the best of us a handful of generations back (at most)
Wait a minute, let's math this.

Assuming dwarves are around as long-lived as normal and we're getting narration from some old, storied dorf with lots of grizzled guff to him, we can say dwarves tend to live around 400 years.

The text says this stuff happened 'tend of thousands of years' ago, so, at the very least 20,000 years, likely more.

That means there have most likely been more than 50 dwarven generations since then. That's a long ass time. How many generations old is the last real historical grudge you hold?';

'>>92611615
Alright I took a free copy from scribd so let me do a review
The first thing I notice is that whoever is writing this is trying to hard to sound like a nerd. Constantly referencing other media and uses ":D" in the "what is a game" section.
The game says its
Tactical: The way they say this is by stating they use a square board and encourage teamwork.
They also state that the game isn't about tactics but just has tactical.
Heroic: Meaning they don't expect your charter to be self interested, ("But they might be!"???) And expect the charters to make the choices.
But you also don't have to be heroic so it is and isn't about heroism
but what they do mean by "heroic" is that your charter operates under movie logic and that they don't need to worry about keeping inventory on supplies
Cinematic: Witch just means use flavor, that is it.
Fantasy: Witch means they prefer the rule of cool then practicality, using a lightsaber as a example.';

'>>92611787
The game uses 2d6 system where you also get 1d4s to add or subtract from the roll based on advantages and disadvantages. (called boons and banes)
You can also use 1d8 called impact dice which you get from your class which can only be added to attack rolls.
There are 6 stats 3 physical, 3 mental
Might: re-branded strength
Agility: re-branded dexterity
Endurance: Endurance
Reason: re-branded intelligence
Intuition: re-branded wisdom
Presence: re-branded charisma';

'>>92611869
There are 4 mechanics called Victories, Experience, Heroic Resources, and Recoveries.
You get victories every time you beat an encounter, all victories turn into experience after a rest
Heroic resources are basically fuel for whatever your class can do
Recoveries are basically the fighters second wind ability
It also takes 12 hours to do a long rest, with no option for a short rest from what I can see';

'>>92611951
IIRC victories also give you bonuses until you rest. So it's a risk/reward thing of balancing your desire for a power streak against how many hit points and recoveries you have left.';

'>>92611787
>This is a game, ultimately about heroics
>finger wave
>erhm, your heroics.
>breathe pause
>inhale
>So, don't expect your first adventurer to be TOO self-centered...
>waves hand
>(although they might be! :D)
I can hear him saying these things';

'>>92612071
Yeah, sadly the scribd version seems to be only rules for the GM so I can't comment on the rest of system too much.
To be honest the system just feels like DND but 2d6 witch would be okay if it weren't for the writing';

'>>92611624
Yeah, where fast but nimble creatures are inherently weaker than bulky fatasses.';

'>>92611787
>uses ":D" in colloquial writing meant to be read as a coherent text
This faggot needs to die.
I am no longer joking.';

'>>92612297
Have you considered that the fast and nimble creatures might have ways to mitigate and evade damage? Or just do more of it?

Rogues and rangers are both easier to hit and have less hit points than fighters, barbarians, and paladins in 5e too. Doesn't mean they're less dangerous.';

'>>92612297
On average, a nimble Dex character in 5e starts with an AC of 14-15 and around 9-10 hit points. They are likely to get to an AC of 16-17 by level 6.

A chonky Str character in 5e starts with an AC of 16-18 and around 12-13 hit points. They are likely to get to an AC of 18-20 by level 6.

The hit point disparity continues throughout. This way of using both armour and agility as basically interchangeable elements of a defense stat is by far the most common way of handling defense in TTRPGs in general, and it is ultimately no different from a situation where the AC and the to hit roll are gone, because the big chonky guys have the better defense stat on average anyway. If you want to avoid this, you have to go to systems where 'defense' is purely agility based, and armour is damage reduction. While some of these systems aren't bad, they are, to be honest, slow as fuck. "Roll to hit, roll damage, calculate damage, then calculate damage again after reduction" is a process that makes combat a huge slog.';

'>>92612089
Does he always act like a cartoon character or is that just for his scripted videos?';

'>>92605627
You aren't supposed to buy a system that fixes 5e's problems, you're supposed to buy 5e and fix all of its problems yourself, and then give it credit for everything you did.';

'>>92612518
How can you evade if attacks always hit?';

'>>92613864
Do you genuinely have no imagination? Even in D&D there's an ability called Uncanny Dodge, which halves damage, implying a near miss or partial dodge. Then there's the even more obvious stuff, like being able to literally move out of reach after attacks, or hide and become untargetable, or do things that debuff an enemy's own rolls.

We see this stuff in games, both vidya, TTRPGs, and TTWGs, all the time.';

'Out of curiosity, why does /tg/ seem to hate Matt Colville? I haven't watched one of his videos in maybe 5 years at this point, but I remember thinking he was rather innocuous. Lots of DMs are enthusiastic and melodramatic; it just seemed to fit.

I actually respected him for realizing that trying to be like CR by pointing a camera at you and your friends and streaming your games is fucking terrible and that most people hate the idea of have to put on a performance while playing with a group of friends.';

'>>92614670
This thread will say "because he's fat and gay and stupid but he thinks he's smart and he's everything wrong with the hobby and made me go bald"

But the actual reason is because at the end of the day he's an e-celebrity, and nobody here actually HATES him. They hate being told they have to care about him. The thread is annoying because it insinuates they're in the wrong for not at the very least tolerating his content, when nobody should have to give a shit in the first place. IE the same reason people get pissy in 9 out of 10 threads.

This site and its userbase does not reward positivity.';

'>>92605627
I'm very interested in the mechanics but the writing looks mediocre to poor which sucks.';

'The MCDM system might be great, but ultimately it's a way to play dnd4e but different, and if I were to play dnd then 4e would be the last version I'd want to play. It might have some novel ideas worth lifting for your own game, but for me this is a hard pass on premise alone.

>Actually, anon, 4e was:
>Underrated
>Misunderstood
>Sabotaged by corporate
>A great wargame
>Really good at handling terrain
>A different way to enjoy dnd
>That they made it at all is worth celebrating
No, it was bad, boring, and embodied the worst parts of dnd. There is no hope for a system that tries to emulate it.';

'>>92610474
Yes, I do';

'>>92610552
>Verdammter Blödsinn.
Goddamn bastard?
t. took German and failed';

'>>92611787
>witch
>then';

'>>92612089
>You can really...
>half breath
>spice things up with these new powers';

'>>92606378
If it doesn't have 3.pf style character complexity then it's shit.';

'>>92610625
Cringe and defeatist attitude';

'>>92612636
>his way of using both armour and agility as basically interchangeable elements of a defense stat is by far the most common way of handling defense in TTRPGs in general
Have you tried not playing D&D?

>>92614670
>why does /tg/ seem to hate Matt Colville?
Because he's a fat retard with an overinflated ego.';

'>>92610552
You schizophrenic retard it’s a saying from /tv/ that people incorrectly use now. Why would anyone want to pretend to be some Europoor subhuman?';

'>>92605627
>MCDM RPG

What a fucking trash name.
He could at least have named it after some Mary Sue oc.';

'>>92625695
It's not named yet. That's just what they're calling it until they settle on a name.';

'>The MCDM RPG: Tactical Heroic Cinematic Fantasy
Wow it just rolls off the tongue';

'>>92625796
Muck dumb thuckf';

'Are there any news when the new ratcatcher book will be out?
No intrest in the RPG.';

'>>92605627
I already wrote a tactical combat RPG that steals from war games. In 2 years I wrote a core rulebook, bestiary, magic item vault/gm guide and a narrative expansion to the core rules. This work was all together about 500k words. I did this while working full time and having a life outside of my writing. I feel absolute second hand embarrassment that this was announced over a year ago and we aren't seeing a full game yet and lowers my confidence in the competence of everyone involved who isn't an artist. If my autistic setting book releases before the game does I'm going to have no confidence at all in the game, clearly confused direction and lack of unified vision at that point.';

'>>92605627
>fixes every issue of 5e
Because Shadow of the Demon Lord already did that for me.';

'>>92606378
This sounds awful mang';

'>>92638499
Except Matt’s game is good while yours only exists in a seething shitpost';

'>>92638722
It exists with me and friends (and like, a wopping 15 customers)

Matt's game being good is shaping up to be unlikely.';

'>>92639233
Name the game. Go ahead. You won’t';

'>>92639233
doubt, haven't seen a fag shill yours here yet';

'>>92639298
>>92639550
Array of Champions. As I said, i've only had 15 people buy my game (Though like 250 downloaded the preview version). So, only one to shill it for it would be me. I made 4 threads over the past 2 years, got really good feedback in 2 of them.';

'>>92639598
Building on, I would like to add that I do *want* Matts game to be good, i'm a TTRPG gamer who dislikes TTRPG combat, hence why my own is basically a war game for the combat. 4E clones are the closest to the wargame feel that the genre gets to in the modern day. Most people do NOT share in that taste; so if Matts game is good it means there's more variety to play at my table. However, considering how much he raised on kickstarter and what we've seen over a year later, i'm not optimistic.';

'>>92639598
Interesting. Don't like high fantasy but I'll check the combat system in the preview.
How did you do the cover artwork?';

'>>92614670
I watched him quite a bit before
I can't speak for /tg/ but the reason why I hate him is that he constantly flipflops on his opinions. It is clear he grew up with an oldfag perspective and understands and even tries to explain why certain things used to be done, and then at the three-quarters point he calls them oldfashioned archaic design principles that are unsuitable for the newage because uhhh they just are ok. I have watched his DMing and honestly he ignores his own advice (I'll give him some slack since as he himself knows recording a game is different from playing it)
His DM advice is also the same as every other youtube DM shitter where it is vague and worthless.

Honestly it is funnier to just call him Fatt Copeville, whose only experience in game design was being a writer for a game without story and spends more time picking the wrong colour for his hair dye';

'>>92639598
I've actually seen your work here. Good job and good luck.';

'>>92641407
It's been a long time, I read some thread on /g/ about how to install a ai generator thing and used that, I think its midjourney? Sadly, real artist aint in the budget.

>>92646357
Thanks anon! :)';