Flow & The Null Result | Designing The Game

[@batmenic365StopMotion]

I wasn't much for their debut album, but Flow and the Null Result found their sound with this track

[@Vael221]

I dunno. I mean I'm a big fan of Flow, but The Null Result isn't bringing much to the table. It seems like Flow could just drop 'em and make it a solo act.

[@fuzzlemacfuzz]

Saw them live at Reading, Null really knows how to milk a crowd

[@jeremymorse713]

I can honestly say, I've seen l their stuff, and I love it 5*

[@KaelinGoff]

Ya, i saw them back when they were just Vibe and the Void. They were pretty underground.

[@jackos5d851]

The whole albulm has a clear, crisp sound and a new sheen of consumate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost

[@DisgruntledPeasant]

The "no null" effect is very well reflected in which spells in 5e are popular. Some of the most theoretically powerful spells are never used because there is a sizable chance that...nothing happens and you lose a spell slot anyway. Spells like fireball are so damn popular because even if you fail, there is still a big explosion, things are set on fire and only very particular enemies are going to take no damage whatsoever. Youre spot on in saying that every failure should still result in "something" happening.

[@Vedexent_]

"All ideas are original ... just some of them have been thought of before." - man, it's the little nuggets of general wisdom like this that pepper these videos that really make me smile :)

[@ffffffffffffffff5840]

Yes, ideas are not invented but discovered.

[@Vedexent_]

@@ffffffffffffffff5840 That's a really cool way to look at it :D

[@FrostSpike]

A few years ago I did a little experiment, every time I had an idea, something that I considered an original thought, I Googled it. I think I found that pretty much every thought I'd had someone had had before AND it had been blogged about. So then I thought "I'm living other people's blogs!", so I Googled that and found that some other people had been thinking that for about a decade before.

[@euansmith3699]

It is a great insight... I wonder who came up with it originally 😄😄😄😄

[@Campfire_Bandit]

+

[@Quartapple]

I audibly giggled at hearing, "But what if... your enemy gets to do something?" Such a brilliantly Matt Colville solution to the missing issue

[@Zmapes89]

A lot of this conversation reminds me of when I used to play mafia and werewolf back in the old days. Back then you could get eliminated on the very first night and there was nothing that you could do about it. It was a substantially Unfun experience. That’s why when games like secret Hitler and one-night ultimate werewolf took out that mechanic, it felt like such a natural and positive progression of the genre. If you can succeed in taking out the bummer of doing nothing on your turn, then I think you’ll see similar positive progression in the TRPG hobby.

[@helloMCDM]

YES. Same experience with Werewolf!

[@TomCantDance]

It's why Blood on the Clocktower is something I want to try at some point. I love playing those sorts of games but share your dislike of just not playing suddenly.

[@chrisrubin6445]

I added a rule to secret hitler with friends that is this: When a policy is passed, the President gives a little speech on what the new law is, and how it is intended to impact people. These laws build on each other and are meant to be funny! Very fun!

[@IngenieurStudios]

I remember one time that I played Mafia with a group of people who thought it was funny if I was always the first one to die. So the one turn I drew the Mafia card and didn't die in the first night, they all knew it had to be me and I got hanged immediately. So basically, I didn't get to play the game. Now that specific example of course is more of a people problem than a design problem but it still is obviously a design problem. That design aspect is the same reason why I think that effects in TTRPGs that paralyze players that have effects of "you do not get to do anything" (like Hold Person in D&D) are inherently *unfun*.

[@joshuawinestock9998]

Honestly Avalon has replaced mafia with my friends for this exact reason

[@Octa9on]

I love the idea of a game built around "no null results". an embarrassing anecdote from running a 5e game: party exploring an old ruin comes across a door that won't open. barbarian tries to open it, fails the roll. tries again, fails the roll. enters rage! fails the roll. taking responsibility for the justified frustration, I retconned that the rage busted the door down. the lesson is, never roll dice unless both outcomes are fun and you don't know which you like better

[@euansmith3699]

Indeed, success at a cost can really help keeping a game moving; Blades in the Dark taught me that. DM, "Make an Athletics roll to break down the door. If you fail the roll, you break the door, but gain a point of Fatigue*" *New style, One D&D style Fatigue, of course; not the horrible old 5e version.

[@bagamer13]

@@euansmith3699 I do this as well! Another option on failure: you got the door open but it took time to do it. Roll for potential random encounter. Cranks up the intensity if the party is trying to sneak around completing an objective.

[@youneedtounderstand8313]

Great video

[@borofreak]

@Octa9on What I'll say might sound douchey, but I swear it's well intentioned. You've mostly got the wrong lesson. The right lesson is: never roll dice if the outcome is either certain or impossible, or if a failure doesn't bring any consequence, or if the roll (the check) can be repeated again and again until the desired outcome is achieved without consequences.. But you're on the money that you should somewhat foresee what a negative outcome would FEEL like if the check fails and rethink if it's necessary. In other words, you need to use your GM-ing brain. But it might be more complicated... On the example, assume it's just a normal but locked door. Simple lock? Okay, if the hinges themselves are not strong and there's nothing physically blocking the door on the other side, the strongest member in the party should have no issues forcing it down. Eventually, they'll succeed. Don't ask for a roll (for now) if they're okay just attempting it forever until they succeed. What if it's a reinforced door? Make it visual. Narrate to the players, so they don't feel bad when they fail, because you're going to be asking for a roll to see if they can force it open AT ALL. Trust me, they won't feel bad if they knew it was a very well reinforced door. They will feel bad only if you fail to mention it and they feel defeated over a simple door. But what if there are enemies on the other side, and the players know it? Even if they only suspect it, busting down a door in one single move can be VERY surprising, as long as they didn't make prior noise. Now, if the players want to have that specific approach and intention, ask for a check with a solid DC to see if they can do it as described. Did they hit the DC? Good. Done and done, as intended. Did they fail the DC? Okay. Narrate they fail, but they CAN keep going to eventually knock it down (regardless of the result). The enemies will be most likely prepared, of course, but it's up to the party to decide. You could even narrate that on a "close-to-the-DC-but-slightly-under-it" result, it takes a couple of swings before the door is slammed open, which only gave the enemies a few seconds to react, so maybe their "ambush" is not as good as it could have optimally been - some might be still scrounging for a position, but they're still prepared and in a somewhat advantageous position. OR... what if there are roaming enemies (tip: do that in almost every dungeon you're running, trust me)? Now, being loud or taking too much time to do a task (in this case both) can result in more trouble for you. In that case, the check IS required to see if the party can swiftly move ahead and potentially miss the roamers who come and check in, or if they'll fail the DC and take their sweet time with the door, they will almost surely invite roamers on their arses. Hope this helps :)

[@TheCode52]

"unless you don't know which outcome you like better" is a great way to put it :) !

[@brandonh4879]

I love the sound of bbeg and hero both on one hit. Each goes back and forth, by some luck massively failing their rolls, resulting in the attack chance getting thrown between them until FINALLY someone smashes through, defeating the other in great triumph

[@Jack-gs6sd]

God, watching Colville work this stuff through while personally learning to play Ironforged and running things like Into the Odd and Cairn, it's fascinating to watch how many of these EXACT problems are being solved in the indie community with GREAT effect, and wondering what he's reading for influences here...

[@michaelbird9148]

I'm curious to see what the MCDM team has experienced from some of those communities. The NSR community, in particular, has had a lot of fascinating ideas. Into the Odd being such a great example!

[@sefatsilverlake3816]

But, both of those games account for null results when you hit a thing with less than its armor right? so there are null results, you attack, and nothing happened

[@michaelbird9148]

Yeah, the armor system functioning as damage reduction can do that, and I find armor in something like Cairn to be an awkward thing. I think the broader point being made was that a lot of games are thinking through these things, so it'd be cool to see what MCDM folks have been looking at. @@sefatsilverlake3816

[@Jack-gs6sd]

Eh, sure, but this is a little rare. At least it's EXCEEDINGLY rare compared to games in which I might get a null result HALF of the time, as opposed to my players who hardly get null results at all when playing, say, Mausritter (first it has to have armor, then they have to roll a 1, for example)@@sefatsilverlake3816

[@Professor_Oaks]

The idea that its more a bad vs good is so much more exciting, an actual gamble... a dangerous coinflip. If in gambling you did not stand to lose something, there fear and elation would not be so potent. I think my joy playing as Skaven in 9th edition really appealed to me because the bad that would happen was almost as common as a crazy success, and thus far more unexpected and fun!

[@jeremydelaporte3770]

After years of buying product and dreaming about running the game and just not being able to assemble a group for it, I *finally* got four of my friends together to play Genesys. It's my favorite TTRPG of all time and it's weird and different and hard to wrap your head around at first coming from 5E/PF2, but it's so so good once you realize the system's potential. One thing that I find fascinating following MCDM's journey in making their own game is how often their design direction lines up with Genesys. As I was watching this video, I noted *three times* where Matt was talking about a particular revelation their team had and what problems they wanted to address and I thought, "Wait, Genesys fixes that problem in a similar way!" Like, Matt talking about how he doesn't like spell slots -- trying to manage the slots of different levels, preparing spells into specific slots, running out slots and being unable to do cool magic, etc. Instead, he just wants to be able to always cast magic and do cool shit, except it costs a resource -- "Strain". This is almost *exactly* how Genesys magic works. You suffer strain, a mental HP of sorts, every time you cast magic, but there are plenty of ways to lose strain as well. Managing that resource is all you care about and it's not difficult or tedious. Or how Matt was talking about how often the flow of the game is disrupted by players needing to garner information from each other about their characters, "what's your AC?". Matt says he just wants a simple system where you make the check, you see if it succeeded or failed, you narrate the fiction and you move on. Know what that sounds like? Genesys combat. You don't need to know anything about another player's or monster's stats -- you just look at *your* skill, assemble a dice pool, roll it, and narrate the fiction. Boom, done. Fast, fluid combat that keeps the action focused on what *your* character is doing. And finally, Matt talks about the unsatisfactory nature of the "null result". This too is something that Genesys addresses. By having not only the Success/Failure axis but the Advantage/Threat access, you virtually guarantee that no skill check ever ends with nothing changing. Last night one of my players rolled truly horrendously on two different attacks, failing to hit both times. However, neither of those attacks resulted in nothing changing -- with the first attack he used some advantage generated to take a guarded stance and give him a defense buff until the end of the round. The second time he used a *ton* of advantage to say he knocked the opponent's weapon out of his hand. Both results were exciting and dramatic *despite* a failure to hit. Anyway, I guess this is just a long rant of me stanning Genesys, but I just felt like it was really interesting how often MCDM's design goals are lining up with that game that I've loved for years and most people haven't heard of. I mean, they were even considering "weird dice" with different symbols and stuff at one point. "All ideas are original, some have just already been thought of". Indeed! All this to say -- I cannot wait to try this game out for myself. Super excited by what MCDM is doing.

[@soloplayer7600]

Was going to say that a lot of this reminds me of genesys (which is not at all a bad thing btw!)

[@SilentP13426]

When he mentioned 'Strain' in terms of casting spells, I thought he was talking about Genesys well, and the comparison just kept on coming!

[@EdKauffmann]

that "no null result" is why I love the FF Genesys system - because your rolls can generate success or failure AND advantages or threats (ie positive or negative things happen, regardless of whether your intended action succeeded or not), you get a matrix of possibilities, rather than a binary pass/fail. when i switched from D&D it made everything faster, more engaging, and really let the players get their hands on the story: "okay i missed my shot... but my advantage is I hit the door panel and the door shuts behind the guards, cutting off their backup for a moment" or "yes, i made the leap across the chasm! but those threats mean i drop my torch as i regain my balance". even if you royally screw up, THE STORY MOVES FORWARD.

[@Reformedhillbilly369]

For those who haven’t seen them, the Patreon posts about this development go into far greater detail regarding the process and ideas. As both a GM and someone designing their own game, they were inspiring and enlightening.

[@NoraKischerBrowne]

No null results sounds very familiar coming from playing and writing Powered by the Apocalypse games. In those, if your roll misses, the GM gets to make one of their moves, which usually advances the narrative or makes the players' lives more complicated. Excited to see how this works in your game, Matt :)

[@lawrl777]

and then the fun part is that by distributing actions that way, you can get rid of turns and rounds and initiative entirely, and it stays fair because every time you get a chance to do something, so does the GM

[@iainmaclean1205]

Came here to say the same. Monster of the Week flows.

[@taragnor]

Yeah PbtA basically does the stuff he's talking about. There's no defenses, you just roll versus a static target number. And there's no null state for your rolls. If you fail in your "attack the goblin" roll, the goblin gets to stab you. The main problem that PbtA has is it has a lot of difficulty modeling more difficult actions. So it's just as easy to potentially succeed on hitting an expert swordsman as it is to fight a basic orc.

[@lawrl777]

@@taragnor yeah ngl it's a bit odd that PbtAs don't subtract a difficulty from your roll the same way your stats add to them, although it does mean the player can read the Move and roll, doing all of their stuff before the GM needs to do anything

[@taragnor]

@@lawrl777 Yeah, I don't think it's purely to speed play because the "hack" they do to make up for it basically entails requiring another roll to set up the initial move, which is slower than simply assigning a modifier, since it creates a whole new roll to it. It'll be something like "Before you can close with the master swordsman you need to roll a defy danger to get within striking range." If I had to guess as to the motivation I'd probably think that they wanted to keep the math simple, since they tend to keep bonuses and penalties to a minimum. Once you get into layered circumstantial penalties it does make the system more mathy.

[@tyrthelawful3855]

Stars/Worlds Without Number attempted to solve this problem with "shock" damage. Whenever you make an attack, the assumption is that even if you don't land a blow to your enemy, you are still wearing them down, and they therefore still take damage.

[@sasoltero]

I really like this idea of no “nothing happens” turns! As a DM teaching the game to new players, “nothing happens” turns are a part of DND that requires the most coaching and DM-craft to keep the narrative of the combat encounter going.

[@namb0]

My friends play in a Powered by the Apocalypse system where there's 3 results: Success, Mixed Success (which can be exchanged for complete success at a cost), and Failure. Ive always loved how mixed success offered the players a choice of "my thing still works but something bad happens", but this video got me thinking about the failure option, and it gave me an idea I want to try next time I run. What if the players could choose to exchange a failure for "Complete success at a LASTING cost." Now THAT makes me excited. Thanks for the food for thought!

[@12thLevelSithLord]

In most PbtA games even failure isn't a "null result" like Matt talked about. The ones I've read all say that when a player fails a roll is when you should bust out a hard move and make that player's day a little bit worse, rather than just saying "nothing happens"

[@scottallen7484]

​@12thLevelSithLord Yeah, this is how I've played it in my apoc games as mc. Gun jams, PC's take damage, parts break, building fire etc. Failure rolls are the MCs best option, reward, result since the mc never makes rolls and relies on PC's rolls.

[@mr0661]

PbtA games, like Dungeon World, use this mechanic for great effect. In Dungeon World, you can have very dynamic and strategic encounters which are a lot of fun to play (and to run). In that game, it is extremely important, that the result of the action (e.g. success) is known immediately to not brake the flow of the game. Of course, Dungeon World is not tactical game, so as it is, it wouldn't work with what MCDM is trying to do, but I hope that they have done research of the subject, because I would imagine it being inspirational, as in DW enemies only act when PC's let them (e.g. by failing in a attack roll).

[@marisacosmos]

I was thinking this as well!

[@stochasticagency]

Defy Danger, so I'm still not hearing anything "new" about this "New System."

[@ryanryanryansmith]

I would love to hear from Matt on his interactions and experiences with PBtA and how these thoughts on Flow come through with that lens. Though I feel that something on the Forged in the Dark family maybe more the speed of tactility that him and his team are looking for in this project.

[@stevenstevenson9365]

The null result is something I’ve been thinking about for a long time, and trying to think of ways you could do it better. I’m so glad these are the kinds of things being thought about here, it gives me so much hope for this future game!

[@GUNDAMURX73]

The idea of "how hard is this spell to cast?" brings my mind to some very neat places, where spells are living, writhing arcane things that one harnesses for their own gain, but are not always under their control...

[@Woodledude]

Hmm. This video is giving me some of my own ideas. I can easily imagine a system that works something like you described - Roll well enough and you get to do a thing, poorly enough and your opponent does a thing instead - But suppose, along the theme of getting rid of the "null result", if you meet in the middle and no one has the upper hand... You Bind. Clash. Whatever you want to call it - The characters in combat lock blades, or fight against each other's spells, or what have you, and the result is that BOTH of them become more vulnerable, in general? Their defense is lowered, making it easier for others to do more damage to them - And the first one of them that succeeds against the other will do more damage, too. In a one-on-one, this could keep stacking into a tense and frenetic gamble, with both fighting for an edge until one dies in a single stroke. There could be risk and reward, if you have the option to pull back from a clash to reset your vulnerability. And depending on the tactical situation, your friends would have an easier time helping you with the enemy you're fighting - Or other enemies could swarm you while you're caugh up defending against the first. No idea if this would be fun or not, but the idea popped into my head.

[@elfberry]

WHOA. Keep filling my brain with game design philosophy, magic man! This game sounds AWESOME. You're putting words to desires I've never fathomed.

[@mapcrow]

Dang! I really like how focused this video is! Really useful and specific!

[@gabrielbostic3694]

I recently reduced my group size from 5 players to 3, because the chance that someone could wait a long time for their turn and then do nothing was so much higher with more players. This is a fantastic concept and I hope it play-tests as well as it sounds!!

[@pairot01]

I'm playing in a star wars edge of the empire game, and that system works a lot like this. It has weird dice, with different combinations of success, failure, advantege, or threats, for dice that represent your skill, the difficulty, boosts, and setbacks. You choose how many of each die, tally up the total result and if you have more successes than failures you just do the thing.

[@MisterCram]

And similar to how Matt describes enemies getting to do things on your turn, if you roll despairs/threats, then the GM can use those to have bad stuff happen to you. These ideas are a lot closer to Genesys/Star Wars RPG than Powered by the Apocalypse that others keep bringing up.

[@paxtenebrae]

You can as the DM make null results dramatic in games that have them but it is A LOT of creative energy to do so. When I narrate a miss I'll often say something like, "Your sword cuts cleanly through the air, the goblin just barely leaping out of the way at the last second. As you advance toward him, you can see the fear in his eyes." Or if its a powerful boss monster, maybe the boss catches their blade out of the air and all the players go, "OH NO!" Right, you force it to be dramatic but yeah it's work and that effort could be expended by the DM on something more useful. Techniques to make null results dramatic was some of the first advice I'd always provide my friends after they'd become comfortable with the basics of running D&D though. It really goes a long way toward making your game suck less. Developing it out of existence in a new game is clearly a very good idea.

[@vast3394]

I think it’s more about supporting it mechanically narration is always good. But it only goes so so far make the system. Feel fun. Or the “null” result

[@Jhakaro]

Yeah this is great but it only works for so long. There's only so many times you can try and make it interesting if players keep failing rolls or enemy's keep failing rolls over and over. At that point you realise, hang on, there's an inherent flaw with this type of system.

[@colemcmullen3904]

The enemy getting to do something when you fail is basically PbtA's approach, and it is superior to D&D's pass/fail mechanic. Looking forward to seeing MCDM's version!

[@DanteShadowfall]

but if I remember right those enemies dont act on their own as well in PbtA

[@PanicSatanic]

It's it's different. But the same. But different. In PbtA almost any genre-compatible thing can happen when you miss. The rules control the severity, but they the GM has an extreme amount of latitude to choose the narrative. Maybe the enemy attacks, but maybe a stalactite falls and hits you, or maybe your weapon breaks. This is incredibly flexible. But it's also exhausting for many GMs for whom creativity consumes energy. Matt's direction is a lot more constrained. Which makes it less flexible but more approachable for the GM. Pros and cons 😊

[@PossumMedic]

I think games like Into the Odd and Mausritter highlight this really well

[@All4Tanuki]

That reminded me that I've been meaning to play Mausritter! Thanks!!

[@davidjay7116]

That's essentially the main PbtA mechanic--which I love!

[@IngenieurStudios]

This is a very interesting game design concept that I feel is really exemplified when you take a pen and paper RPG to a digital tabletop with automation baked in. Recently, I've been running games in FoundryVTT while another friend has been running their game in a more classic style. Although both games have attack rolls made against armor class to determine the result, the automated process of running in FoundryVTT means that with the single click of a button, we can determine the result and the damage of an attack. Turns _fly_ by, meaning that even when someone biffs all their rolls, their turn quickly comes up again. You don't spend 20 minutes waiting for your turn, you spend maybe 2 to 5. The automation allows things to work so well that we once resolved a combat encounter with some players while we all had a completely unrelated conversation about something happening in another room with other players. But in the pen and paper style, there is a ton of exactly what you're talking about: "Did I hit? Does this save? How much damage is that?" It's a huge time sink and there is so much back and forth required to resolve just one thing. Not that I'm saying that pen and paper games should not be made anymore, far from it. But it's _very_ interesting to me to see the result of eliminating that consultation phase from a player's turn. It's not a medium problem so much as it is a design problem that some mediums can minimize.

[@PrinceRezlock]

Dude, I just want MORE of these videos! As a TTRPG game designer, I can't get enough of these.

[@LukeStrife]

This is one of the reasons I've been enjoying Ironsworn lately. So much more narratively focused. Failing doesn't mean doing nothing, it just means something interesting and new happens that you must adapt to. Failing forward, driving the narrative!

[@josephcrane4795]

Matt's philosophy seems similar to PBTA. It'd be funny if at the end of the design process MCDM just accidentally created a powered by the apocalypse game with a focus on tactical combat. (I am here for it though either way).

[@helloMCDM]

I was really worried, with this new system, that we'd sort of disappeared up our own fundament, but then several game devs said "Oh this is like Midnight Suns!" And I was like...what's that? "The new game from the X-Com guys. Works exactly the same way." And I said "OH THANK GOD!" The fact that the **X-Com** folks got to the same place we got gave me great confidence.

[@elahrairah0]

It's an underrepresented space! I'd be stoked if that was the result

[@davidmc8478]

I have been daydreaming my own game and gone through exactly the same thought processes, influenced by PbTa and Blades in the Dark, as well as experimental initiative systems and come out at a very similar place, except in mine the enemy interacts with your dice roll (influenced by pushing from ezd6) rather than you having to ask for stats. I have the player rolling for effect, which can be zero, and then the enemy immediately counter attacking. So a good hit kills the enemy but a weak hit results in a counter attack.

[@elahrairah0]

@@davidmc8478 I'm always interested in reading design docs, if you've got any to share!

[@spacelem]

Fighting Fantasy did the same thing. In combat, either you do damage, or they do. Admittedly this is a bit more nuanced, but it's still a 2d6 roll to see who does the damage this round.

[@dandepalma9305]

Hallelujah! I appreciate that you are not "designing" a new fantasy rpg that is just a derivative D&D with different chrome go-fasters attached. I am enjoying watching the process and witnessing the innovations. Rock on!

[@mcox2171]

Matt is a river unto his people!! Two videos so quickly!?!

[@KingRickardttv]

Reminds me a lot of how the Symbaroum system functions in terms of making checks. Absolutely love how well it flows in game.

[@Shield_OW]

the bit about "nothing happens" when you miss is why i started describing every attack as a hit in d&d, not like every attack does damage, but every attack connects, it may glance off the armor, or be parried by a shield or sword, but cinematically something is happening, you're in the battle, you're not swinging at air

[@FrostSpike]

Even "hits" can be "misses" though when you're assuming the abstract nature of D&D's Hit Points. A "hit" might cleave through the air, but the target had to dodge and it tired them out just a little (if it's just a small amount of damage), or they successfully blocked/parried the blow away but it left their sword/shield arm numbed from the impact (if it's a larger amount of damage). Or perhaps they jumped back, the blow narrowly missing their chest but landed badly and turned their ankle, twisted their knee, etc. Likewise, as you say, " a "miss" might be an actual "hit", the target trusts their armour to just absorb the blow, or allow it to glance away, without harming them at all.

[@Shield_OW]

@@FrostSpike that works on describing stuff that happens to the players, but exercise caution when applying to monsters, i dont disclose monster hp to the players (only when they hit 50% i say they start bleeding) so the players may think they are not doing any damage and start getting frustrated

[@FrostSpike]

@@Shield_OW When my players think that their characters aren't doing damage they don't get frustrated, they get scared. 😁

[@themcchuck8400]

Into The Odd and its many derivatives (notably Cairn) don't use attack rolls. You only roll for damage. Combat is fast, furious, and decisive. Initiative and surprise are very important. Players spend a reasonable time trying to avoid combat, or plan their ambushes to stack bonuses.

[@Calebgoblin]

That's such a cool and sci-fi sounding title. I don't know what it means but I'm excited to find out and feel smarter and more photosynthesis

[@arisakathedappergoose4796]

I love this idea of 'strain'

[@nicka3697]

Try meat loaf

[@blackbelt352-dd]

Mechanically it reminds me a lot of Paradox from Mage the Ascension. As you cast your magick, Paradox builds up over time on your character, and eventually backlashes, usually when a spell fails to cast (MtA uses dice pools and counting up successes) or at the ST's convenience, causing a wide array of problems for the players to deal with.

[@MisterCram]

Many of these ideas sound like the current Genesys system from Fantasy Flight Games now Edge Entertainment. Which I guess makes sense, as you have praised the Warhammer fantasy roleplay game they made for some of these ideas in the past.

[@BlazarusXVII]

This reminds me a lot of the Mechanics vs Settings video you put out, specifically regarding how there could be boons and set backs. The idea that a resolution could be made without checking AC's or saves, etc... and continue combat without the slog, while potentially increasing the drama/tension. Super cool.

[@mevensen]

You’ve nailed one of my pet leaves in 5e. Not checking things like AC, but other interruptions in game flow, like reactions, particularly things like Counterspell, Silvery Barbs. Now, reactions like this make a lot of sense, but they kill game flow. Looking forward to seeing your solution to this.

[@cjmizanin1]

Agreed. I removed Counterspell and Silvery Barbs from my games for this reason (well... this reason and the fact that Silvery Barbs is just plain dumb).

[@archonmegas3718]

Flow is a challenge with many systems. Especially once multiple characters have multiple options to command flow themselves. Having too many flow controlling abilities can lead some players often acting on their turn as well as other players pcs turns shifting the time in play dramatically in their favor. If great flow can be achieved in a no fail system, I believe it will be a massive success.

[@utkarshgaur1942]

100% It's anti-climactic. For a dramatic reaction, I love Hellish Rebuke. But counterspell is just the worst.

[@Lurklen]

@@utkarshgaur1942 But not conceptually. Like having a thing to undo or interrupt your thing is fun, it's just that what it does is make nothing happen. Like if counterspell made your spell do the opposite of what was intended, or some other effect that altered the situation, it would be much improved.

[@Dragonfrooot]

It is really cool see Matt so excited and passionate about this. THIS is what the TTRPG community wants from its creators. If Matt has fun, we have fun! So excited for this series and this game! Keep having fun Matt!!

[@rayganrambles]

Dude, this sounds SUPER FUN! I'm enjoying Game Dev with Uncle Matt. I'm excited to see what's next.

[@LightLMN]

This is such a fun sounding concept. It reminds me a little of "Success, but at a Cost" I've read about in relation to Fate Core. I really, really like the idea of complicating the player's world instead of penalising them for a bad roll.

[@marisacosmos]

Success at a cost is the 7-9 result in PbtA games too!

[@Jhakaro]

I mean technically this is actually penalising them for a bad roll and the normal D20 go-to doesn't. Like normally you just miss and nothing else happens which is boring and less dramatic but no penalising. Here though, missing results in a negative outcome against you so actually penalises you more. It's definitely more interesting though and if it works both ways, could be a fun mechanic. All depends on how it is implemented really.

[@HereComeMrCee-Jay]

Yes, Dungeon Crawl Classics helped introduce me to this. In stead of success or failure, have different successes and different failures depending on the dice roll. Yes, it's more complicated and crunchy, but in my view that's the right kind of crunchy.

[@bigsarge2085]

Okay, MCDM, color me intrigued! I think I'm going to like this system/gaming philosophy.

[@treymclemore3418]

Loved the original Patreon post and this is an excellent video that gets those ideas across! Getting to see the design process of the Inevitable MCDM rpg is a bit like watching an open theater surgery. Fascinating, messy, and vital

[@Vedexent_]

Love the ideas here - I've played with something similar by making "combat rounds" fluid - they become "the length of time it takes for something dramatic to happen". That turned out to be unworkable, since if you have multiple Character/Opponent pairs, everyone's time gets out of joint. What I eventually came up with was something similar: every "clash" SOMEONE gets in a shot. There is no NULL results. It flattened initiative, since it's not a question of "can I get my death shot in before you can injure me" anymore - since really both attack rolls are being resolved at the same time - so I'm really curious as to the "new initiative system". The "fully contained, reference free roll" is a brilliant idea though. I'll have to think on that one.

[@im2randomghgh]

A lot of the design philosophies you're discussing here remind me strongly of how combat in Dark Heresy work. It makes me appreciate those games I've played more in retrospect and I think that's quite valuable. Thanks Matt!

[@mus0u]

i really like Into The Odd and games in that vein for this reason. no to-hit rolls, just roll damage.

[@Jaybirderino]

i have been reading all the patreon posts as they come out but its great to hear Matt put it into dramatic perspective! Looking forward to more of these videos!

[@euansmith3699]

Matt is so good at presenting his ideas dramatically! 👍

[@joshuamanon79]

this reminds me of a design problem from Magic: the gathering. long story short, the card time walk, used to act as or sound like it took away your opponents turn. they recognized this was just the same as you taking another turn in a 2 player game. so instead of it being "you do nothing", it becomes "your opponent gets double".

[@LemurMaster]

It seems like the more straight forward option would be for the defender to also be rolling dice. Then they're the ones to track their own defense with their defensive dice. Both parties roll simultaneously, count their successes (adding them would be cumbersome), and then you can have all sorts of results based on how many successes each side got. There'd always be a chance of an extreme failure (defender has way more successes than attacker) causing something like a riposte or counterattack. Then player growth could be measured by what sorts of dice and how many they roll for each activity. Abilities could impact which results on those dice were considered successful, and the interactions would always be dramatic, even when they result in a null-style standoff.

[@MisterFizzer]

This was attempted early on I think! But for one reason or another, both characters rolling was swapped out to try other resolution mechanics. (Rapid Prototyping, as one of the other videos mentions). There's more of this discussion on the Patreon

[@LemurMaster]

@@MisterFizzer It reminds me of games like "King's Forge" where often the final roll is an exciting dice-off with all sides counting their successes. That dice off mechanic has a great tabletop feel.

[@scmh1288]

Roll outcomes a la Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark. Critical success - homerun baybee Strong success - clean achievement Weak success - achievement at cost Failure - oh lawd adversity

[@jackplant6909]

This sounds similar to how combat works in Dungeon world, with monsters striking or the GM making some other move when characters roll low. In my experience it's great fun and does indeed help the flow in combat considerably

[@rhyspuddephatt]

I like the idea that the non-null let's your opponent do something being slightly shifted to, you failed you now decide what sort of opening you leave for your opponent. So agility becomes hampered and the opponent can use one of its abilities that utilizes that stat. Coupled with ways to reduce the options situationally for players could be really dramatic

[@Carlphish]

I like the way that many TTRPGs now have players be the only ones that roll, and the success of the monster is based on your failed roll. Many powered by the apocalypse systems use this mechanic.

[@stevenquillen4662]

"But I was working really hard to see everything with fresh eyes." ❤

[@SetOfTheSail]

Interesting! It's almost like Matt is describing the Genesys RPG system without actually naming it. I wonder if he knows that or are his ideas just new ideas that he didn't know had been thought of before (and played for years). ;-)

[@_zurr]

I'm curious to see how this will be functionally different from "I miss, enemy takes turn". I'm guessing the actions the enemy takes must only be enabled by "missing".

[@lawrl777]

i mean "I miss, you can roll to hit now" is basically the same as "I hit or you hit", it's just faster

[@cruye9633]

Icon has a "no-miss" type thing where all your attacks still do _something_ if you miss, usually a small amount of damage.

[@15PaperSpearsProtectTheWise]

By Icon you mean Tom Bloom's game? I adore it! It's so incredibly well designed

[@Kolchakk]

Worlds Without Number has something similar with Shock damage in melee combat.

[@cruye9633]

@@15PaperSpearsProtectTheWise yes, Cio pfp person, i mean the game by Tom Lancer Kill Six Billion Demons

[@15PaperSpearsProtectTheWise]

@@cruye9633 LMAO gotcha gotcha

[@johnmartorana196]

What you said about flow and needing to ask for more info rang very true to me... I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my friends. We're currently playing Pathfinder and since we're older and now spread out around the country we play on a VTT (Foundry). We all agreed: the game would probably be too complicated and heavy to play in person - no way we'd be playing. But on a VTT that automates a lot of the work for you, there's a lot less interruption of the flow. You don't ask what their defense is or have to remember all the random +1s... So I wonder how VTTs are effecting game design nowadays. In our case, the "flow" of the game has been reasonable with all the automation. It might not feel as fun live, which is just something I find surprising to hear myself say as an olde school RP-er. Do you ever specifically consider the effect of VTTs as you design your games?

[@AgentForest]

This makes me incredibly proud of a system I've been working on lately, because I independently arrived at a similar conclusion to this idea. My combat system essentially uses a glancing blows mechanic, in the sense that all actions taken WILL happen, but its more about the degrees of magnitude based on rolls and responses. If a goblin rolls to attack, I roll the hit check AND the damage. Your move, player. "Well, it didn't meet my Dodge chance, and my Avoidance means I get to throw away 2 of the 4 damage dice. Because I specialized into dodging as part of my Purpose (instead of classes, you sorta build your role as you go by picking features), I get to ignore the strongest dice rather than the weakest. So that 18 damage is now a 7, and hits my stamina instead of health." The player gets to decide how they respond to the hit they took, but nothing stops me from resolving the entirety of the attacker's mechanics at the time the attack is declared. So not quite the same as setting success to the difficulty of the action, but it still avoids a back-and-forth to allow combat to just keep flowing. The nice thing about both systems is that the difficulty of an enemy can still be throttled by design. Success of a basic sword swing against a goblin is pretty easy, so the goblin would just have far fewer options for ways to respond to that hit than an adult dragon would. I'm so excited to play your system when it comes out. It sounds really fun and engaging.

[@PompousDingo]

Man this video just got me super excited for y'alls RPG. I wasn't sold on it but the thought process in this video was banging and pleased my brain's design juices.

[@Wuggynaut]

No Attack Roll is something Into the Odd (and games based on it like Cairn, Mausritter, Electric Bastionland) does and it has led to one of my favorite combat systems to run ever. So fast and decisive.

[@diegotartaglia]

Looks like simultaneous action resolution. I use a similar mechanics with FUDGE/ FATE. NPCs don't roll, they have a static value (say, +2). The PC engaged with that NPC rolls against that value. Success means they deal damage or whatever he was trying to do, failure means the NPC does its thing, tie means both combatants are dealing blows and parrying but only getting tired (no damage, just a point of fatigue to each). It's amazingly fast and fun, and the GM doesn't have to worry about rolling.

[@bensledge4652]

This mindset and way of thinking about The Game Itself has me super excited for what MCDM is gonna cook up. S&F and K&W were both huge hits at my table. Y'all have some incredible minds at the helm over there.

[@maybemaeb]

Goddammit, I just lost the game.

[@TheLyricalCleric]

Sounds like contested rolls-I like it! I like the idea of not having to look for information about the game from outside of the roll and the moment you’re in. The dice should say what you want them to say-not adding a bunch of modifiers, but having dice just be dice. Did my die beat your die? I get the good result. Did your die beat my die? You get the good result.

[@TheNerdySimulation]

One of my favourite rules from Paranoia: Red Clearance is when using a negative skill you consider anything that isn't a Success on the dice a Failure. It is great with the smallest modification of _not_ having those Fails cancel out a Success specifically for the reason of avoiding a Null Result. Now instead of 3 fails, you get to do the thing but have to explain 4 failures worth in how this situation escalates or alters and when it clicked that I could spend Fails as the GM to have NPCs act? I immediately got giddy for the game I'm currently working on :D

[@jimjones7980]

This kind of sounds like a combination of Vaesen (using a Year Zero Engine variant) and the combat of many games that use Powered by the Apocalypse as their core rules. Interesting.

[@jexsnake]

Rolling to damage is exactly how Into the Odd solved this problem. Funny how different people converge on the same answers for similar or same problems.

[@Sparticuse]

It's fascinating to watch Matt run through these design ideas because my friends and I were super into homebrewing and combining systems back in the day (cyberpunk 2020 mixed with Call of Cthullhu is fantastic btw) and we had all of these same discussions, or discussions very similar.

[@lordjalor]

This talk of the Null Result reminds me of the Failing Forward video Matt released on the Matt Colville channel way back when. I believe his example was something along the lines of "You fail to jump over the chasm BUT you grap onto a vine that's attached to the floor by a thread and you are now hanging on for dear life." You didn't fall to your doom and couldn't save yourself; you instead failed to make the jump and are not in an even riskier situation. Likewise, you didn't fail your attack roll and did nothing, you failed to effectively attack and so your enemy got to attack back. Curious to see how this no null result affects spellcasting and ranged attacks. Tangentially related but Betrayal in the House on the Hill by WotC also has this melee attack mechanic where you attack and if you roll lower than your enemy, you get damaged.

[@ryansilver4212]

These looks into the design of this game is so intriguing!

[@lpanebr]

I like this effectiveness versus hit ou miss thing! And also the roll against your own abilities.

[@jeroenimus7528]

One of the main reasons I'm GMing less is because my health doesn't allow me to spin as many plates as before. This pause-play-pause might well have a great impact on that so I'm looking forward to keeping the flow going. (also why I lean to more narrative systems)

[@SamWeltzin]

The game Ironclaw has a lot of ways to remove the null result. When you attack, your opponent has multiple ways to defend themselves, including a counterattack, and sometimes when they successfully perform an action that by default has a null result, it actually winds up giving them a boon. It doesn't perfectly get rid of the boring aspect of "nothing happens, turn over," but it opens up a lot of options that D&D doesn't have. The way it does health, however, DOES have more difficulty with making you feel like you've done something with your turn. The way it works, you can hit the enemy and still wind up doing nothing new to it. Still love the system, but that kind of thing can really suck.

[@aDancingCookie]

Mark of the Odd games were revolutionary for me in terms of flow. They removed attack rolls as well, and combat is SO fast and fun. I've also got my own slotless, 'strain'-type system for casting, and similarly it is more narratively satisfying, intuitive and tension-building. Really excited to see this game now!

[@staberinde9102]

Building a rules-lite RPG of my own these videos are invaluable I love your energy and inisght as always. The main thing is just seeing how much fun you actually have crafting and playtesting all the ideas!

[@AdellRedwinters]

"The Momentum Killer" is how I've described the whole player waiting 20 minutes to do nothing. As a battle goes on, the momentum can swing either way, badguys favor, goodguys favor, but when all the sudden everyone is rolling like ass and literally nothing about the battle is changing it just kills that momentum dead in its tracks until the dice/rng decides its time for something interesting to happen again.

[@Keyce0013]

The longer I listened to this the more I got to thinking Matt was doing something similar to Blades in the Dark. Whenever you "fail" a roll, you don't get a "nothing happen". Instead you get something like: "You try to smash his brains into paste with your warhammer, but he rolls sideways to avoid your attack and then slashes your leg with his sword." Blades still requires player input (they might want to avoid or reduce an outcome's effectiveness and have a resource to resist), but nobody ever gets a "nothing, next!" roll.

[@TheHalldorian]

Love these videos! Also - Sounds like MCDM discovered how PBTA works and I love it! 🎉

[@TheHalldorian]

Reading this again I see how it comes across a little snyde. MCDM as a company obviously have been familiar with PBTA principles and I am genuinely so excited that they employ some of them in a tactical cinematic fantasy game. Its a perfect match for my players and I and its missing in the market in my opinion! Thank you!

[@bluecorvidart]

Oh rad! When I was working on some combat tweaks for a game just like a month ago, I stumbled upon a similar solution to the "misses are boring" problem. (In my case, the solution -- a "miss" means the enemy gets an action -- came from a complementary problem: the game is about teams of characters fighting enormous monsters together, so how do I balance the action economy so that groups don't overwhelm single targets? The monsters needed more actions, and something needed to happen when player turns were bad, so now instead of comparing attacks to defense, the monster just gets a response whenever it's hit, with failed attacks provoking scarier responses. It spreads out the monster's "turn" across the rest of the round, which gives the fight better pacing, and means that players can just decide their turn order amongst themselves as well.)

[@Thalugor]

Love seeing the influences being picked up. A yeah, preserving narrative momentum is so good.

[@gqsnowman]

I've been toying with the idea of building a die pool for actions and then splitting those dice into how effective it is vs how likely it is to be effective. Impact and Contact. I really like it. Makes a lot of push your luck fun choices.

[@deaconlasagna8570]

Sounds similair to one roll engines wide v tall dice rolls made with sets (4 sets of three is faster then 3 sets of four but does less damage, etc)

[@gqsnowman]

@@deaconlasagna8570 I wasn’t familiar with that one. But I read up on it and the big difference would be that in mine you separate the dice before you roll, so you’re having to accept a higher risk of failing if you want to have greater effect.

[@QUILLWYRM]

What you described in the beginning is the reason I fell in love with 'Roll Under' systems, players being the ones to know if they pass or fail when they roll is very satisfying. I feel DC's in 5e and similar systems actually have the same flow breaking effect, except its not as noticeable to players. but god damn my flow breaks every time I have to imagine an arbitrary number, then compare players rolls against it. Roll under stat to succeed, with modifiers modifying the stat, or dis/advantage (to model task difficulty), flows the best in my opinion.

[@man0fbronze79]

I love the sound of this. In my head its likethe players have several options on say, an attack. The more powerful the attack, the more damage/status it can inflict, but the difficulty goes up. Risk/reward balance would create more agency. Cant wait to see what it actually is. ❤

[@zreyon]

Love the idea! And I've been loving it for some time without knowing that's what was making it appealing. A house rule I implemented in a D&D-like system was natural 1s meant the opponent gets a reaction (there are no other reactions in the game), and my players have really enjoyed killing someone in their own turn. And my current favorite system makes it so that on a combat round, both contestants roll a combat skill, and whoever wins hits the other, though I might have to work on the draw (null result). Can't wait to see what you guys come up with!

[@jettolo]

About the flow, i fixed the interrupt issue making players rolls for both attack and defence, where i as a GM give the player the DC after the scene description and before their roll, so they have all info to understand if the succeded or need a reroll (luck points benny etc). It worked very well

[@sirhamalot8651]

13th Age made an attempt at eliminating a null result. When you miss, you deal your level in damage instead of rolling. You're at least doing some damage, but doing 3d8+4 on a hit and a paltry 3 damage on a miss is so negligible that it hasn't solved the "feels bad" of wasting your turn because of the bad luck of the dice. I love the idea you present here of having several attack modes where you challenge your own skills. The more difficult the challenge, the higher the reward. I look forward to your future comments on this.

[@Ikashi2]

This reminds me a lot of Shadowrun 2e, where Target Numbers affected what could be done and how difficult it was, and the player had autonomy on what they were attempting and how they could make it easier by doing cinematic things

[@quickattackfilms7923]

Dang it man, your same criticisms are exactly the driving force of my system too. In my game there’s hardly any missing of attacks, just a lot of resisting incoming damage. And you can always do SOMETHING on your turn.

[@dangermunkdelta]

Powered By the Apocalypse games have this same "no null result" idea (on any move, on a miss, the GM makes a move as hard as they want), but takes it a step further: the GM never gets a turn and never rolls, acting mainly in response to PC misses.

[@oengus]

This seems like a fun way to keep the action going and furthering the narrative at the same time. It sort of reminds me of the success and failure mechanics from games such as 7th sea or Not the End, where the difficulty of the action, your abilities and luck determine your success and possible consequences on the environment and the enemies

[@pvrhye]

The blue/orange color scheme in the video looks great.

[@CJVale]

Okay, here's my two pennies worth as a guy who has run D&D like Matt just described: I honestly have no problem with asking another player if they are hit, it gives me a little mental break to think "What could I do next?". I like that, and somehow it makes managing groups of enemies a lot easier, and I've worked it into my flow. Maybe it's because I've always played digital due to how split apart my friend group is, but that kind of play is just normal to me. Maybe it's just like role playing, a muscle I've worked to the point that this doesn't seem like heavy lifting to me, but I can totally understand why this may be cumbersome for some people. On the missing attacks problem: I love the idea you have, it's very similar to the Star Wars: Edge of the Empire system, and of the games I've played, it's honestly my favourite dice rolling system. Even if you miss in that system, the dice have a secondary result that means you can confer some help to an ally, or reduce your own strain to keep you in the fight. If you completely botch it in that system then stuff can happen to you from the enemy as the GM dictates. Interestingly the null result is there still, but you're thankful that it happens because then you don't suffer any consequences, so maybe a null case is warranted, but rare. As an aside, all dice rolls were public in Edge of the Empire, because there was a base difficulty you had to overcome to succeed in checks, so the GM has a lot of narrative heavy lifting to do to keep the flow going. (I've been running the game since 2016, and watched your series as a sort of "Academy" on how to get better, and also trying to carve out my own style, and I just love that I'm getting more and more passionate about this hobby the more I explore in it, and also when branching out into other games)

[@pseudonym6387]

I've played games that use the "if you fail, your enemy gets to do something" mechanic: the most immediate one that comes to mind has every attack as a contested 2d6+level roll from both combatants, and the person who gets a higher result hits and does damage (either the attacker rolls better, they attack, and do damage, or the defender rolls better, they block and *counterattack* to do damage). This doesn't accomplish the "You don't check in with another player on your turn" (since every attack has the attacker and defender both rolling), but the only way to whiff a turn is "both combatants' 2d6+level rolls produced the exact same total", which is rare enough to make missing interesting (since, cinematically, that's not "you miss", it's "your enemy just barely manages to block your assault, and you're so evenly matched that they can't counterattack this time"). One pleasant (and deliberate) side-effect of this system is it lets a single higher-level character take on entire waves of lower-level enemies without getting overwhelmed by sheer action economy, since they can counterattack every enemy trying to hit them if they roll better (which, considering the genre for this game is 1980s-1990s style "one woman army" ninja-fad stuff, fits what they're going for very well without bogging down the game).

[@colinmancini1080]

These videos are so interesting and insightful, thank you Matt and the entire MCDM crew! As someone currently designing his own d20 system (but it's soccer matches in place of combat) these kind of thoughts are really inspiring and thought provoking

[@rworrick8037]

Great presentation Matt! You got me excited for your content again.