Has anyone heard of the game Buckshot Roulette? It’s a popular indie game where you play Russian roulette but with a shotgun, and there are items and you can take multiple hits, etc. The dealer shuffles a random amount of blank and live shells into the gun, and on each players turn they have to choose to either shoot themselves or their opponent. Obviously you don’t want to shoot yourself with a live shell.

I really liked it and I’m working on a card game version of it, but with different theming (not involving a gun, or death, or suicide). I was thinking maybe robot factories sending potentially defective robot spies into their opponents factory? Dunno, I’m drawing a blank (pun intended).

I’m not making it for sale or anything, just for funsies to share with friends and family. Anyone have any ideas?

Currently I am developing a sci-fi factory management game and I am around %75 done, I am in a stage where I can add more major/minor mechanics to the game? Some of the ones the game has except from the basic power, storage etc. are:

-Connectable factories.

-Different main buildings with different managers for different bonuses.

-Change of colors/cosmetics.

-Being able to trade with in and off world companies.

-Taking contracts.

-Creating the main character for different play styles.

-Different rarity of products/researches.

I'm looking for single-player games that are "easy to learn, difficult to master", that focus on a narrow set of mechanics that you can spend months/years getting better at, without getting bored, as opposed to games with a wide variety of mechanics (like GTA, for example), where you can do a lot of stuff but each mechanic on its own isn't deep enough to keep you engaged for months/years.

Hi there I've started working on my first game which is built using twinery. It is a text based sci-fi narrative game in which the player has access to a super powerful AI which it can command to carry out the players instructions. This takes the form in a variety of modular pieces of narrative in which the player makes decisions which affects either utility variables or activate subplots based on the value of certain variables.

My goal is to have a sort of narrative spine which consists of main missions in which a majority of the choices will have some consequence. This is done by for example modifying certain challenges rolls the players have to beat. For example maybe the player hacked into the federal surveillance system and now has a plus 10 to a hack check during a mission with a little piece of text explaining why.

My main issue right now is understanding how I should design these variables. I want to use a main utility variable called computing power which is required for almost every of the commands the player can give. I would also want the player to be able to expend resources beyond that in order to increase the chance of their success but I'm not sure if this should be computing power as well or if I should make more granular variables.

I would love any advice or resources that can help me get a sense on how and why these variables should be designed in order to facilitate player freedom without becoming too complex or cluttering the game.

I know about games like Limbo and INSIDE. Are there any other projects with similar level design? Ori - not quite that, I think

I’m currently working on a roguelike in a similar vein to “Balatro” in that the player starts with a mostly regular game of Yahtzee (having five dice to roll a couple times to make a scoring “hand”) but the player can collect dice with different modifiers or faces that can drastically change their approach to scoring for that run.

My original idea was to have your regular dice: d6, d12, d20, etc. as well as more unique dice like a die that has five faces that equal “1” and one face that equals “100”. I also wanted to create more abstract dice like fruit dice, or animal dice.

However, that’s where I’m having an issue with the design. These dice will need their own scoring button. Say you have a new scoring button called “Orchard” that only can be scored if you have five “apple” die faces up. My issue with this is that the player will need to collect five dice with an “apple” face for this scoring button to even be possible.

My current idea is to give each face a numerical value as well so they can be scored in a regular scoring “hand” like three-of-a-kind or a small straight.

What would you do to go about approaching this concept?

I'm looking for a game that uses voice over in a similar way to the Beginners Guide and Getting Over It, where it narrates as you are playing. Specifically, I'm looking for a game where there are multiple voice overs that you can switch between as you play.

Does anyone know of a game like that?

I am at the drawing board for a project which is going to be a fighting game a-la Mortal Kombat, except where the characters' special moves aren't fixed - they're bound to a TCG-esque deck system which must be managed and/or responded to!

I'm trying to avoid unnecessary information overload where possible. I am also trying to conjure up a system for inter-deck interactions.

The first system is pretty damn straightforward; some moves might target the "parry" tag, others might target anything with the "unblockable" property/tag, etc. etc.. Unfortunately this can get cumbersome very quickly in the context of a fighting game.

The second system is the same, but condensed down as much as possible. I believe I can get away with only 5-8 targetable move-classes... but this limits my design space to some yet-to-be-revealed extent.

Should I try to keep my number of targetable classes low, or should I try to leave the design space as open as possible?

I have a concept that, on paper, sounds like a city builder. The basic loop: get contract, assign workers, complete contract, buy new buildings, upgrade equipment of workers. Repeat.

But there’s going to be lulls between workers doing task, and buying things. That lull and how it is filled is the magic, and I’m wondering what that is. What keeps players going between the building and upgrading while money slowly comes in?

I wanted to start a discussion on interesting ways to limit and balancing sprinting in games. I’ve come across two kinds of sprint mechanics most often:

• Sprint Meter: Sprinting is usually performed with a face button (or shift key) and a meter limits how long you can do this before you are punished or not allowed to sprint. In many games, the player feels like they are “babysitting” the sprint button. Also, many of us find that we can sprint longer in real life than some of the characters we play
• Unlimited Sprint: Press the left stick and run as much as you like. In many games this is better than a sprint meter especially in open world games, but it often feels like a missed opportunity to do something interesting. When there is no reason not to perform and action, why not always perform it?

My preferred sprint mechanics allow the player to sprint whenever they want but some other mechanic limits when this is a good idea. It makes sprinting like every other action in a game, something you must choose strategically. Here are a few examples, many of them you’ve probably seen in games before or in combination with other mechanics.

Limited Abilities

You can’t perform certain moves in this state. A common example is not being able to look down sights or perform stronger attacks.

Action Penalty

You suffer a penalty to your other actions after sprinting. Maybe your aim is shaky just or recoil is worsened just after you stop. It could take longer for you to reload or perform other dexterous actions. Perhaps you can’t regenerate your health or perform stronger attacks for a moment until you can catch your breath.

Limited Mobility

You may be able to move quickly, but other aspects of your mobility have worsened. You lose your ability to quickly switch directions or stop, so sprinting requires more skill and situational awareness.

Stealth

Sprinting will alert nearby enemies or your presence.

Tripping

A random chance of stumbling or vulnerability to injury. Not a good idea in pvp, but I could see potential in a single player game.

Earned Speed

Speed is privilege. You don’t instantly start moving at max speed with the press of a button, but you slowly gain speed over time. Sometimes, the faster you go, the less you accelerate due to drag. Speed is limited by your own ability to keep it.

Environment

You use your environment to gain speed. Dash panels, wind, objects, inclines, etc.

Disguised Sprint Meter

These mechanics are glorified sprint meters, but feel less offensive.

• Fuel Consumption: The faster you go, the more fuel you use. You can’t move when you run out. Can be used as a disguised mission timer.
• Overheating: There are often penalties for running out of meter, but there are more interesting ways of cooling down, such as running into water or letting in air. The environment can affect how quickly you overheat.
• Stamina Meter: Other actions are incorporated into the meter. When you are also using the meter for climbing, attacking, gliding, and swimming then it feels more strategic
• Resource Management: You still lose meter from sprinting but there are interesting ways to regain meter during a challenge or encounter

I’d like to hear your thoughts on these mechanics and any other ideas you prefer.

Disclaimer: By no means I think that competitive games are bad, they just tone down gameplay in favor of fairness on both sides, making the game both more skillful but also more same-y

Of course when playing in multiplayer against other real people you want to win, and generally the chances should be 50/50 on equal skill level is the common sensus- but that's both hard to achieve in unequal team sizes AND different roles to play.. how do you define winning even? If one of your survivor friends survive? If you specifically survive? Does the killer loose if anyone survived? If a certain amount survives?

All this I ask is it really necessary? Like can't a game be designed so that it's just fun to be the Murderer while the Prey are actually frightened, have many possibilities to survive (I fully believe Dead by Daylight is completely balanced around generators because they are scared of adding new mechanics to balancing.. seeing at how they basically almost removed the hatch) but it's so unlikely it actually feels fun even if you die?

What are your thoughts?

Hey yall. I have noticed a few times throughout my career that sometimes, you'll be working on a design, and suddenly a new rule emerges that significantly improves the game. For most of my designs that worked, I can think of one major "breakthrough" rule that really made the game happen. I also can think of at least one failed project of mine that really failed because it failed to find that breakthrough rule.

I wrote in depth about the "breakthrough rule" for my upcoming card game, Spellstorm, here.

What's your experience with rules like this, does this happen for you as well?

Hey all, I'm working on a horror game that involves making your way through randomly generated maze levels. The goal is simple enough, find the hatch that leads to the next floor. I have an entity that stalks you through the maze.

My issue is that I know there should be more, but can't for the life of me think of a way to elevate the experience of maze running that doesnt sound cliche. After a few runs the game feels incredibly repetitive.

Some ideas I've had were:

1. Adding keys needed to unlock the hatch or sections of the maze.
2. Coop with proximity chat. Start players in separate locations, only way to find each other is to speak up, but the entity can hear where the emission triggers.
3. Maze rearranges itself over time, but I feel this would be more annoying than add to tension.

Idk i feel like im just staring at the wall on this. Any bits of inspiration appreciated! I'd also appreciate reccomendations for other maze-style games I can draw inspiration from, bonus if it's horror!

I've noticed myself enjoying older game more and more over time as many franchise and multiplayer game became more rng based over time and I am not sure why they became that way.

Older games, such as FPS, used to have specific weapon on the map (like old halo, old cod, or quake). Sometime you would start with the same weapon. And now if you look at modern shooter with the exception of a few, you'll see rarity drop items (later cod, fortnite, pubg) where the exact same item will deal more damage, making the experience feel more unfair.

If you think of strategy game, older game (85k player base based on https://thunderpick.io/blog/starcraft-2-player-count ) like starcraft or warcraft would have clear things happen and predictable results, yet modern strategy game like tft (33 million playerbase) which required you to use rng as a core game mechanics.

If you take game like league of legend. Initially, early game development was not quite impactful, but late game positionning was and objectives, while good were not game changing. Now, if a team get a lucky early development from an ally, they are almost certain to obtain early objective and early objective are so strong they lead to late game lead. Making it so that out of 5 player team, the first player of each team to produce positive or negative development will make the most impact on the game. Therefore most game are determined by your allies, positively or negatively. While older version of the same game would have stronger defensive position, allowing for team to do comeback, which you barely see in the modern game.

If you take a look at MMO rpg. Even world of warcraft made the shift from allowing critical strike on dex based attack to integrating it directly into spellcasting, adding RNG from 1 or 2 class in the game to over the 2/3 of classes.

You see the same thing in sport games and loot box mechanics.

You see the same things in rpg game like diablo, which altough solo or coop still integrate rng is both the encounter and the loot.

Older game did have some rng, to a degree, but if I think of most of them, they seemed to spend a large quantity of time in an attempt to achieve game balance.

In a way, rng can increase the variance of results, making unbalanced gameplay blurry and with AI, it potentially make generating content easier, but you'd assume that a gameplay where your descisions have more impact would be more appreciated?

We see it in game like the dark soul series or god of war or zelda games or also game like counter strike, which even though it is old, it is still doing strong.

So why do so many new game push for RNG? What is the game design behind it?

Is it purely for development cost or is there any good reason for such a move in the industry?

Do these exist? Any examples? Seems like maybe an unexplored space..

Imagining something maybe where the interaction between players is asynchronous. Or maybe a single player game loop and a separate multiplayer game loop

I’ve always wondered why such an RPG inspired genre is so dominated by shooters, when you’d think a PvPvE with lots of items would really draw in the ARPG or MOBA crowd as well. I’m not a game designer by any means, but this is a topic that I’ve always wondered about. I think there’s a lot of people interested in the extraction genre that don’t have the FPS skills and reflexes but are very at home in these other genres that would equally suit the PvPvE style of game. This just a showerthought, but one of you guys should go make an RTS or ARPG extraction game.

Hello there strangers,

We’re currently developing a minimalist arcade game called Nightrunner - feel free to take a look at our video.

And we’ve started scratching our heads about risk reward mechanics.
Fundamentally at the moment the more checkpoints you get, the more enemies spawn, and the harder the game gets. But this is a somewhat one dimensional incentive structure, and though it creates agency in completing a goal, it doesn’t allow for much in terms of on the fly decision making, as the game simply becomes more linearly hard the better you perform.

A mechanism whereby risky play might reward you with being able to destroy some of the enemies, allowing you to keep the difficulty in check and get a better Highscore seems like a good idea, but coming up with novel and focused ideas is proving to be a bit of a challenge :)

So as you’re the smartest people in the room, maybe someone has some ideas as to how to add gameplay complexity so as to broaden the decision making horizons of the player.

Games like snake, asteroids and even Pac-Man seem to have an optimal strategy, where you simply hone in on doing the thing that rearwards you, and adding a second order gameplay possibility would be cool. As of now our game is a little bit more on the one option side of things.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

With kind regards!

​

Kind of a theoretical question, mostly to the ones existing in the design/marketing liminality of the group.

If we exclude the physical/digital aspect of tcg/ccg distinction, could we say that their differences are mostly to the marketing side of things? Ofc, I get that the medium thoroughly shapes the processes of promotion, valorisation, and moneymaking overall.

What I'm asking is more like, does the medium affect their design principles at all? I recently read that "Deep Dive: card games" book, I think author's name is John Bryce (mate, if you're seeing this, excuse me, I ain't got the book at hand right now). And while the digital aspects a game offer for much easier patching, balance, and integration of interactions, these are all ex-post corrective differences and opportunities; it looks to me like tcgs and ccgs are only separated by the practices employed to market them.

As a counter-example, we had lcgs. Their card design, their mechanics, their set structure, were built around the presumption that they WOULD be seen out by all players. Their balance wasn't correlated to the cards' rarity, and power creeping wasn't necessary to keep them going (maybe that's one reason they actually didn't xD i guess small one compared to corp shenanigans, but still).

I seriously don't know what I'm asking here. Just some thoughts maybe? I'd love to hear yours.

I’m making a horror game and i’m working on the menu. So I wanted to know, do I need to add music? I don’t have music on anywhere else, but a majority of good games have menu music. But i’m not that good at making music, so I settled on just putting ambient sounds, which was good enough for me. But I need a second opinion on this.

Valheim, Minecraft, Subnautica, etc are all amazing titles that I love. But at some point in your playthrough you are inevitably juggling 30+ chests of materials, loot, and other items.

Every time you return to your base you have to spend 5-10 minutes just unloading all your stuff. If you just throw it all into a random chest to save time then down the road its a headache to find items you need.

Is this a solvable problem? How would you solve it?

Now on Google Play: Quantum World (Free, no Ads, Play Family Guidlines)

Hi all! I'm working on a monster tamer game and I'd like others opinions on information based collectibles.

What I'm referring to is data logs, audio logs, Intel, etc - collectibles that give some sort of information about the world, characters, quests, etc.

I am planning on having data logs that the player can collect through out the game that give information about past events in the world, as well as provide tips for finding other harder to find quests/monsters in the game.

Aside from this, I'm contemplating reducing several scenes in the game into data logs. These are scenes that focus on character building, but are not 100% vital to the story. However, I do feel the absence of these scenes will greatly reduce the impact of the story, especially if players don't even read them. However, as a solo dev, this may be the harsh reality I end up having to go with.

With all of that said, I'm curious what everyone's thoughts on information based collectibles is? When designing my game, I thought it would be a good idea because:

1. I love collectibles
2. I love in-game lore and world building

However, I later realized that in most games, I don't ever read these data logs. If they're audio, I enjoy listening to them, but also find them to be a bit of a hassle as I tend to stop playing and just listen to it because I don't want anything to interrupt them. So it ends up breaking the game flow just as much as a data log you have to read.

Another problem I have with these is how they are contain different types of information, for example, some might contain information that is purely world building lore but not relevant to gameplay, while others contain hints on where to find certain events in the game. This overlap could cause frustration for players who don't care to read these logs, but now have to scour them for hints.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Do you enjoy them, do you not care for them, indifferent? Pros, cons, etc.

Are there ways outside of "players enjoy the gameplay" to create intrinsic motivation in the players?

I'm in the very early stages of designing a turn based combat system for a roguelite. It'll be a static menu style system (as opposed to tactical turn based), and I want to settle on one core gimmick to add some depth beyond item/skill variation and synergies. I'm going down the static/menu route to keep things somewhat fast and snappy during runs, and it will likely be party based with small (2-3 character) parties that you can level up/specialise during or maybe between runs.

While I haven't played MTS games (on my backlog but they're $$) I love the sound of the Press Turn System, and imo one of the most satisfying realtime combat systems is Sekiro's stance breaking. For those unfamiliar, the Press Turn System gives you extra turns if you hit crits or similar on the enemy, and in Sekiro the aim of combat isn't really to deal damage but to perfectly parry attacks and eventually break an enemy's stance, which allows for a killing (or massively damaging) blow.

I had a thought that a cool take on Press Turn would be to give enemies a stance meter, and all moves do hp and/or stance damage. Once an enemy's stance meter is full, their stance is broken — they get stunned, you get your AP/energy refilled for the turn, and stance damage of attacks stacks onto hp damage (or similar). The same rules would apply to the player, so they have to manage their own stance, buffing as needed (kind of like stress in Darkest Dungeons).

I've never tried designing any kind of combat system before, so I wanted to sense check the idea. Is it sound? Anyone more experienced than me have any thoughts or input? Any other ways I could add some (simple, scope-constrained) depth to a modern static turn based combat system?

EDIT: And as a complete aside, I have been toying with the idea of just going tactical turn based with movement to add lots of depth instead, but as a very novice designer I feel like it'd be much easier to add tedium than it would be to add depth by introducing movement. Is that a correct assumption?

I've managed to pretty clearly define 2 of the 3 class types of a game I'm working on (Balance Type/Light Type) but I am struggling to figure out exactly what a heavy/tank type character should be as I almost never play these classes in games.

I'm looking for a general play style of what players enjoy about being tanky characters. Any character references would also be great. Are tank players mostly into big damage or support or something in between?

UPDATE: You guys have absolutely killed it with your responses. Learned a lot so far, keep them coming if you want. I'm taking notes

What would be a good way to showcase “potential” incoming damage in a turn-based, top-down game?

In the game I’m working on, i want players to see how much damage will come in to different positions on the field so they can decide how to deflect or avoid it. But, my current system is confusing to people who can’t tell the damage hasn’t hit them yet. It’s a card game, so enemies are using cards, but I only show the damage that the player’s team would be receiving (rather than highlight all the effects of each card the enemy will play)

What would be a good way to showcase this to clarify the information for the player?

I've noticed that many beginners in game design often confuse gameplay with the visual and artistic aspects of games.

This misunderstanding is particularly apparent in level design and level design portfolios, where there's a common focus on aesthetics rather than the practical elements that truly enhance gameplay.

Consequently, these individuals struggle to get interviews, as their portfolios may not adequately showcase their understanding of effective level design and how it contributes to the gameplay.

I think the main reason is because most beginners confuse level design with environmental art. While both are crucial for creating stunning games, they have distinct roles:

Level designers craft the layout, placing swings, slides, and even the occasional friendly monster (or not-so-friendly one!) to enhance the gameplay.

Level interactive spaces that challenge and engage players, making decisions about:

• Enemy placement: Where will players encounter enemies, and how will these encounters test their skills?
• Jumping platforms: How will players navigate the environment, and what kind of flow will it create?
• Pacing: Will the level be a fast-paced adrenaline rush or a slow, suspenseful crawl?

Environmental artists take the level designer's blueprint and transform it into a visually stunning masterpiece. They create the:

• Gorgeous landscapes: Lush forests, bustling cities, or maybe even a creepy abandoned spaceship - the environment sets the mood.
• Eye-catching details: From the textures on a wall to the placement of a single lamp, these details bring the world to life.
• Cohesive style: The art ensures the entire level feels like a unified and believable space.

So, the next time you're building your level design portfolio, remember: focus on the interactive aspects!

The goal is to showcase your design process, not just the final product. Here are the key elements to include for each level design piece:

• 2D Maps: Simple sketches showing the level's mechanics and flow.
• Blockouts: Early, in-engine level layouts using basic shapes like cubes. Videos or gifs are better than screenshots to show iteration.
• Documentation: This can be notes, references, or flow charts explaining your design decisions.
• Final Level: Showcase the final playable level using gifs or videos, with or without final art. Include before-and-after images with explanations for changes.

So if you are interested in the level design or you are struggling with your portfolio, then you should check out this guide by Nathan Kellman:

Nathan is an experienced level designer who's worked on Diablo IV with Lost Boys and amazing human being that has been selflessly reviewing hundreds of aspiring level designers' portfolios since 2020, making a substantial difference in our community.

His guide goes into depth on how to structure your level design piece, what kind of pieces a portfolio should have, as well as how to capture the attention of hiring managers as well as keywords and examples from actual portfolios of folks that pulled ahead of the pack and got hired.

Beginners, share your struggles!

I've been working on my lockpicking and breaking mechanics the last week and I was wondering if anyone has encountered these systems in unique ways that give good visual and input feedback. I want to know if my system suffices and if there are ways to improve how it feels. My systems currently work as follows:

Lockpicking:

- Lockpick is created with between 2 and 5 tumblers depending on the lock difficulty. The player then holds W, A, S, D, or F to prompt one of the tumblers (which of these prompts which tumbler is randomised each time). Each tumbler has an 'green' zone, placed at random on the vertical axis of the tumbler. When the player prompts the tumbler, a slider pin starts moving UP, and when it hits the top, starts moving DOWN. The player must click while prompting a tumbler and having the slider pin in the 'green' zone. Failure breaks a lockpick. Success unlocks the tumbler. It's also worth noting the size of the 'green' zone is determined by the character's thievery skill, and the speed at which the pin moves is determined by the character's dexterity skill. High dexterity and thievery would create a slow moving pin and a large green zone.

Lockbreaking:

- Lock is created with a tension of 0, which if it reaches 100, causes the lock to break. Similar to lockpicking, we create between 1 and 5 'grips'. W, A, S, D, F represent these grips. The player must hold down all the shown grips (I wanted some grips to feel awkward) and then click to add tension to the lock. Tension increases per click based on character's strength and drops per frame at a rate determined by the lock strength. So, a strong character would add large amounts of tension with a single click. A weak lock would lose this tension very slowly.

It's also worth noting that locked objects in my game can be unlocked and locked again. However, breaking a lock obviously means it cannot be locked again, which I thought also adds feedback in terms of interaction.

Any opinions on how I could possibly further improve this would be greatly appreciated. Any examples of lockpicking or lock breaking mechanics you've encountered that you thought were great I would also love to see!

Hello everyone,

I'm looking for examples of squad-based tactics damage calculations - think of games like Age Of Wonders, where each controllable unit represents a number of individual characters. I want to see how various games apply damage - does the unit function as a single ball of HP, only dying/losing capability when the entire pool is reduced to zero; or does each unit have its own HP and receive hits individually, attack or die individually, etc. Or is a different system used altogether?

Open to any genre (including tabletop), although those with primarily ranged/firearm combat is preferred, and likewise with preference towards turn-based rather than real-time combat.

Thank you!

Hey there! Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the connection between your game design skills and the games you play. Of course, there's a relationship there, but more and more I have noticed that playing old games usually yields better results, at least for me.
The reasons are multiple, but the three main ones I think are unique (or at least more present) when playing old games are:

• Learn more about game design and game dev history by actually engaging in the creations of the past.
• Because most old games didn't have the usability standards we have now, they're more difficult to get into, thus forcing you to engage deeper in the design. This, in turn, improves your game analysis skills.
• Because there were fewer resources back then, designers were usually very clever and came up with ingenious ideas to solve some wicked problems. This could help your ideation process, as these old games may contain more 'uncensored' systems and mechanics, while today some big games are mostly driven by metrics and monetization rather than gameplay.

What do you think about it? Do you like to play some old games? Or some bad games (which I think sometimes could also help you to know what to avoid!).

I discuss the reasons in depth in my latest video: https://youtu.be/Or00OfikYmM

I hope you like it :-)