Photograph via snooOG

All things related to designing tabletop RPGs, wargames, and board games.

All things related to designing RPGs, wargames, and board games.

Discuss, brainstorm, post links to your prototypes and finished products. Be sure to read the posting guidelines page.

If you post something and it doesn't show, send the moderators a message and let us know which post is not showing. The spam filter is inaccurate.

Visit the play testers volunteer page to find play testers, or list yourself as a play tester and/or game designer!

Games designed by /r/tabletopgamedesign:

Related subreddits:

Board game bits suppliers:

Other Links:


Feel free to suggest new links for the sidebar.


71,946 Subscribers


Thoughts on this mechanic for 4x, dudes on a map, or area control games?

There are a few problems these types of games often have with larger player counts (4+) that seem to be endemic to the genre when it comes to combat.

  • The defending player often simply has to just take the punch, and even if they know it is coming, doesn't have a lot of options in terms of how to respond when an attack is declared on them.

  • Players not involved in the combat are just sitting around the table, not actively engaged in what is happening. Especially in games with big maps where the outcome of the battle isn't relevant to the other players, this can often feel like you're simply waiting until you get to play the game again.

What would you think about a mechanic that gave Defenders the ability to do something in response to being attacked, and actually involved other players at the table? Here's what I am proposing and could be adapted to work with many existing 4x, dudes on a map, or area control games:

  • When a player is attacked, they can choose to either Taunt or Appeal:

  • When a player Taunts, they gain a bonus in defending themselves. Whether this was carefully laid traps, hidden ambushes, or simply battle lust - the defending player is ready to fight for their home.

  • When a player Appeals, they may look at the hand of a player not involved in the combat. The Appealing player may then choose to share that information with the attacking player (or not), and crucially, give the attacking player a chance to take back their attack in exchange for X resources. Whether the defending player is a master diplomacist, misdirecting players and shifting threat onto others, or simply paying a ransom in order to protect their much loved borders, they have some degree of agency in how they respond to an attack beyond just picking up the dice or playing cards on the attackers terms.

This gives defending players some minor consolation prize if they choose to Appeal and are rejected by the attacker (knowledge), the attacker has the flexibility to act like a raiding party (want to give me some resources and knowledge? In exchange, I won't destroy your stuff), and involves other players at the table (Go for Jeremy instead! He has this powerful card in his hand that he is about to play!).

A mechanic like this adds a layer of bluffing, enabling Defenders to lie about what they have learned, while giving Attackers the chance to learn something new about another opponent and simply choose to attack anyway. It creates opportunities for conflict between multiple players by dragging in an otherwise uninterested party, but most importantly it creates some natural role playing on the table! Attacking becomes more than just taking over territory, it's a way to gather resources more efficiently and hidden information from other players. And Defending is more than just fleeing your territory or defending it to the death, players now have a way to lose a bit now in exchange for keeping their hard earned stuff while (hopefully) putting the attention on someone else.

What do you think of a mechanic like this?

21:50 UTC


Cooperative Drafting Doesn't Exist?

A cooperative 'players vs. game' where each player drafts from a rotation of closed hands is a design idea I haven't seen at the center of a game yet - and I'm starting to understand why.

In a game where players are working together to each build the best engines/tableau to support the team, coordination and communication are critical. This doesn't mesh well with the hidden information aspect innate to closed drafts. Players could of course reveal cards in their hands to their team to help combat this, but that just feels fiddley and clunky.

I don't think this is something that can be handwaved by theming, it really needs a clever design that makes the dissonance between closed drafting and coop into a fun central keystone.

I've come up with a few solutions and I'm interested in hearing yours. It's rare that the merger of two mechanics doesn't have an already existing game (filtered coop + closed draft on bgg) so it's potentially an untouched design angle...

20:42 UTC


[Hiring] Prototyping Assistant

Hey there, I'm looking for a collaborator to help implement weekly changes to multiple developing prototypes. This would be roughly 5-10 hours per week with occasional deadlines based on playtest dates.

Compensation is negotiable - let me know what rate would make sense for you.

Main Responsibilities:

  • Quickly learn and understand the rules and objectives of new game prototypes.
  • Update the data and design of prototype components (cards, tiles, boards, etc.).
  • Basic modifications of prototype visuals and UI / graphic design.
  • Create new and updated ready-to-print prototypes. and modify visuals and UI.

Necessary Skills:

  • Ability to quickly understand how new games function
  • Familiarity with a wide variety of board games.
  • Access to and proficiency with Photoshop / Illustrator (ideally both), Google Sheets, and Google Docs.
  • Knowledge of (or willingness to learn) Card Maker.
  • Clear and consistent communicator.
  • Manage tasks across multiple projects efficiently.

Desirable Skills and Experience:

  • Canva UI/graphic design.
  • Creation of sell sheets.
  • Creation / Editing of pitch videos.
  • Generating creative content with ChatGPT an Midjourney.

Pay and Perks:

  • Negotiable compensation.
  • A part-time, flexible role that fits around your schedule.
  • Hands-on experience with the board game development process.
  • Work on a variety of board game prototypes, focusing on the technical side of game development.
  • Opportunity for future growth: paid playtesting, playtesting lead, development, etc.

If this all sounds like a possible fit for you, I'd love to hear from you! Please answer a few questions about your experience and qualifications on this form and I'll follow up shortly after: https://forms.gle/5a28H9JpbEqs7gbL7

1 Comment
20:26 UTC


Here's some Rules of Play for my Table Top RPG, Phoenix Quest! More information will be posted as I keep organizing it 😁

18:54 UTC


Looking for an early feedback on board game idea- any help is much appreciated!

I am working on a board game (sample snap attached) which allows 2-6 players to play in a conquest to rule over the land and all kingdoms.


  • Each triangle in this hexagonal land represents one kingdom
  • Each Kingdom has structures such as faith/temple, well, village, armory, treasury.
  • All kingdoms are connected via a bridge
  • Each player owns one kingdom.

Game Play:

  • Each player starts by placing their tiles on the board/respective kingdom.
  • Non structural tiles are marked with numbers for now which produce different resources like water, metal, wood, sand
  • Structural tiles is what you can build using those resources as you collect.
  • You build structures in your kingdom/in another kingdom/attack in another kingdom.
  • Each kingdom gets one meeple called as builder which moves in its own kingdom based on a dice roll and collects the resources and builds the structures.
  • Your attackers spawn in your kingdom and need to go out of your kingdom through the bridge into other kingdoms to acquire land/structures
  • Attackers will need Attack and defense capabilities which is collected by the builder on those numbered tiles within your kingdom. (A/D)
  • There is also a capability of collecting addon/special cards within your kingdom if your structure is built by you/you own a attacked structure in another kingdom. Basically all structures have their own pile of cards which have special abilities/addon abilities.
  • Overall, you keep building/attacking/defending your structures/land and collect victory points and at the end you own the land and kingdoms.

My Ask:

  • With this short and brief description, does this even make sense to continue? Is it too basic?
  • Do you feel there can be some improvements right away/ things that could be thought of in this conquest?
  • I started working on this last year and came across a game board that was published with very similar game play and rules and from then on I have been stuck in re thinking it all together.

Disclaimer: This is my first development ever.

Any/All help is much appreciated.


18:50 UTC


Card layout- new game maker! :)

Hey new game designer here!

So I am super green to this world of game design, but very excited be on this journey and any help would be appreciated! I have all of the base elements and text written out as well as a basic design. going forward I am just curious how people put together their cards.

The mechanics of my game is that of Cranium or Quelf where you land on a category/color and then draw a card from that and follow the instructions on each colored card. But each card would hold the same basic layout aside from the instructional text and the symbol/color on the front per category.

I was curious how seasoned game makers do this whether there is a software I could use or if typically people go card by card. I'm in the playtesting phase with a very handmade board but i'm just curious for going forward!!

Thanks friends!

17:09 UTC


Anyone with experience with card based resolution mechanics?

Edit: went ahead and added the mechanics in question to OP.

I'm designing a wargame with some heavy rpg mechanics and a poker deck rather than dice. I'm at place where i have most things in place and know the way i want the mechanics to work, but I'm at impasse because i can lock down the resolution mechanic. The roots of the system are ported from a rpg, so some things aren't translating. IE in the rpg, you control one character vs in my skirmish game you are controlling 5-10.

Ok so it's a cyberpunk skirmish game with heavy rpg elements. I'm Focused on the skirmish part. I have some choices for resolution systems that I'm trying to select from and polish. Before i tell you the core rules, I'll describe the special rules that makes this decision important for context, then explain the core rules.

Momentum: if player successfully executes an offensive or defensive action, ignore the rule for discarding cards.

Technique Chain: attack actions are represented by suit (ranged is hearts, melee is spades etc). If your played card matches the suit of the action being attempted, you may play a number of additional cards equal to the units modifier for that action. (So a +2 in ranged means that you can play 3 total cards for the action, assuming they are on suit, rather than the standard 1)

Before i explain the separate systems, here is what is true across them all: They all involve the player having one hand of cards that they play from when activating any unit they control. You may take up to 2 actions per turn, and may play one card per action taken (unless using a technique chain). There is no "to hit" play. An attack is assumed to have hit, and it's up to the defender to respond. Value of the played card serves only to determine if the attacker card defeats the opponents defense card, not damage dealt. We still use a wound system. For example, i shoot at you and play a 7. If the target unit has a shield, they may flip a card they've played face down from their hand. If the flipped card is equal to or greater than the 7, the shot is blocked. If the flipped card is less than 7, the shot is successful and defender takes a wound. There are more defensive reactions, just giving a general idea. Ok, here is where the systems differ.

Option 1: discard any cards you may have from the previous activation. >activate unit and declare action. >if the unit has a modifier for the attempted action, draw a number of additional cards equal to the modifier. > play card for action. >opponent may respond. > end turn. >opponents turn begins.

The thing about this system is that you discard all cards at the beginning of your turn, and only draw when you activate a unit. This means, on your opponents turn, whatever cards you still have in hand from your previous activation are the only cards you have to defend with. Thus Momentum becomes important, because a successful hit prevents you from having to discard and therefore allows more options in hand to choose from.

Option 2: beginning of your turn, discard any cards you may have from the previous activation. > draw X amount of cards where X is your leader unit's rank. >Activate a unit and declare an action. >if the unit has a modifier for the action, draw additional number of cards equal to the modifier. >play cards for action > opponent may react > discard a number of cards equal to the number of additional cards you drew this turn. If you can't discard, take 1 stress (separate system, not important atm) for every card you can't discard>end turn

Im leaning toward this system, but there are kinks that need to be straightened out around discarding. In this system, you discard at the beginning of your turn AND at the end of your turn, unless you have Momentum. This means successful attacks carry momentum into your defensive turn, and successful defenses Carry momentum into your offensive turn. The thing here is discarding. I was told that "discard a number of cards equal to the number of additional cards you drew this turn" could be clunky in game. I don't know if i agree, but the alternative is that a player without momentum just discards down to a max hand size, and max hand size could be altered in game via command points. I kind of like the max hand size idea, but i think the max hand size needs to be low, like 1, in order for Momentum to matter.

21:10 UTC


Werewolf Mechanic Opinions

Hey guys. I'm currently thinking about the next big expansion to my card game, and I was hoping to get some completely outside opinions about a werewolf mechanic we're going to include and I've narrowed it down to a few possibilities.

(I'm going to be a bit vague about which game it is, which is on purpose. I can potentially discuss that later. :-) )

In short: In this game, every card has a resource cost to play. There are characters that players control that add to their defense and once played they stick around. There are also creatures that they play from their hand to attack other players' characters with. If a creature's attack is greater than the total characters' defense (ties going to the creature), they get to kill one of their opponent's characters, after which regardless of the success the creature is discarded. There are both 'werewolf' characters *and* 'werewolf' creatures.

Mechanic 1: "Stronger at Night" - The werewolf characters get a boost to their defense when it isn't their player's turn and werewolf creatures are pretty much like normal creatures.

Mechanic 2: "Pack Mechanics" - The werewolf creatures get a significant attack boost for each werewolf character an attacking player has, and werewolf characters are otherwise normal characters.

Mechanic 3: "Transform and Kill 1" - A player can "exhaust" one of their werewolf characters for free to make a low-level attack with that character *as* a creature. If the attack fails, the werewolf character dies. (This would essentially be a "free" low-level attack per turn.)

Mechanic 4: "Transform and Kill 2" - A player can exhaust one of their werewolf characters for free to double the attack strength of a werewolf creature (i.e. they "transform" into the creature) but if the creature is defeated, the exhausted character dies as well. (The player would have to pay to play the creature, but risk one of their characters to boost it.)

Mechanic 5: "Transform and Kill 3" - A combination of Mechanic 3 and 4, so werewolf characters and werewolf creatures both have a bonus with risk.


20:57 UTC


custom dice sets

My school dnd club is wanting to make merchandise and one of the ideas in custom dice, where one side has the school logo. is there any website or places where custom dice could be made?

20:47 UTC


Tools for skilltrees

It's time to build skill trees for my TTRPG heartbreaker. :)

What tools do you recommend? I've seen a lot of mind maps software, but I'm not sure if that's the right sort of tool.

This is a bit like what I'd like my skill trees to look like.

Thanks for your help!


20:07 UTC


Best way to implement a round countdown

In my game, it involves men building castles and having a cooldown timer too. These are all round based. So if you want to build a castle it would take a man 3 turns to build it and 2 turns to cool down before leaving.

At the moment I am using countdown tokens with 3,2,1 on. However, as the game progresses, more and more build up and it becomes a chore having to change them all at the start of every turn.

I’ve tried to come up with an idea where there are separate zones labeled 3, 2, and 1 to put the men in, and just slide them all over at the start of the turn. The trouble there is that I now have to keep track of what men were in what locations with what castles.

So all I have atm, is my countdown counters

18:39 UTC


Printing Cardboard Punch Outs

Not sure about the proper name for it, but I’m looking to print 2”x 2” square “tiles” on a cardboard punch out. No clue where to start looking. So I come to you, o’ faithful subreddit. Can you point me in the right direction and/or have any tips for the process?

17:40 UTC


Kids dungeon crawler - help me see options for more depth in the rules

I'm making a dungeon crawler to play with my 7 year old son, after him having watched me play Gloomhaven with friends.

Obviously Gloomhaven is too complex (and we're no native English speakers), so instead I came up with some very simplified rules:
Your character has three stats (Fight, Shoot and Magic) as well as a static move and hitpoints. Movement is done on gridded dungeon tiles.

Each stat goes from 0 to 3, indicating how many cards you can draw from your deck. Each deck contains X amount of "Success" cards and Y amount of "Miss" cards. You draw up to the relevant stat when attempting something and drawing a single "Success" card is enough to do what you wanted to do (ie hit somebody with your sword). Later balancing will decide how many of each of the "Success" and "Miss" cards will be in the player's deck. Enemies will have their own, shared deck with me controlling their actions.

Weapons dictate how much damage you deal and your range. Armor subtracts damage dealt to you. I have yet to figure out how magic works, but I'm thinking different spells (like "Heal") that would then require a "Success" to trigger.

And now to the questions: Where do you see room to expand the rules (so they're still playable for a 7 year old)? How do I avoid combat getting too stale, where the player will simply attack each turn until the monster is dead (and the monster doing the same)?

Do you think weapons should have more effects, like some hitting multiple enemies, other preventing them from moving etc.? Should I introduce a die roll to determine damage (or maybe have damage be multiplied by how many successes were drawn)?

Any and all input will be greatly appreciated!

09:08 UTC


League of Legends Moba Board game Part 2!

Hello everyone. i was very fortunate to get playtesters and i managed to make some big strives where im comfortable to say i think the core gameplay is done.

Now its just language tweaks and small balance changes.
But i wanted to say thank you for all the feedback given in my first post!


In case you didnt see my first post heres the general gist of the game.

Overview "Embark on an epic tabletop adventure with our League of Legends-inspired game! Take command of mighty Champions, each with their own unique abilities, as you dive into a strategic battleground. Crush minions, conquer towers, and outmaneuver your opponents to claim victory!

Game Mechanics Resource Management Tactical combat (Character placement is key to victory)

Game Time: Full game for new players is about 4-5 hours at a decent pace for learning. Game can be shortened by first to destroy all front towers. (ideal for first timers)

Game Difficulty: Very Beginner friendly. with little information needed to start. so you can learn as you go. that said the game can be very competitive and tough to master. The game is a marathon of making good decisions throughout the game.

Game is up for free on TTS if you want to check it out. I would love to hear feedback and would love to demo it out if ppl are interested

00:55 UTC


More Item/Armor cards designed. Are these clear-cut and straight forward? Basic Explanation of game in comments.

00:22 UTC


Is power creep unavoidable in LCGs?

Imagine you make a core set with fifty cards evenly distributed along a 1 to 10 power scale, so there are five 1s, five 2s, etc. If players have to make a deck using 20 different cards, the "strongest" deck would be all the cards that are ranked 7 or higher, giving the average card a rating of 8.5. If another fifty card set gets released with the same distribution, now the "strongest" deck would use cards ranked 9 or 10, giving the average card in that deck a rating of 9.5, significantly better than with just the core set. 100 cards later and the best deck only needs cards that are 10s.

At that point, the only way to improve your deck is to get "better" 10s, ones with more synergy, for example. That means that, without power creep, most of the cards in the new sets would be useless, at least 90%. You can tweak those hypothetical numbers as much as you'd like, but the end result is functionally the same.

Even if you're just making one new card per expansion that goes into the deck and replaces something weaker, the deck is getting better. And you can't just make weaker cards because people won't want something that doesn't add anything.

21:27 UTC


Cooking Competition Deckbuilder

Hi there! I'm currently working on a video game that's themed around cooking and specifically cooking competitions. I've pondered on this project a lot, and how I'd like to make these competitions more than just "choose your recipe, your ingredients, watch the result". I enjoy card and tabletop games a lot, and I've become very interested in making these competitions into a simplified, preferably faster-paced card game. I plan for the player to be encouraged to build their own decks for each cooking competition.

I'm mostly looking for feedback and general impressions, as well as opinions on mechanics I haven't fully settled on yet.

Currently, I have a rough concept of card types for the competitors: ingredients, recipes, techniques (I'm unsure if these are necessary), and chef cards. Right now, my idea of the flow of the game is as follows:

  • At the beginning of the competition, the competitors draw a hand (somewhere between 5 - 10 cards, I haven't decided) from their deck, which includes ingredient, recipe, and technique cards. Since this is a video game, I plan to ensure that each competitor receives at least one recipe card from their deck.
  • Chef cards, which I imagine could be similar to commander cards from MTG, are revealed. These cards require specific conditions in order to be played.
    • For example, a particular chef may require a recipe with a Spicy flavor to be on your side of the table in order to be played, and then you discard a recipe card from your hand, and may allow you to use a powerful effect, such as boosting a dish during the next judging phase or reducing the number ingredients you need to serve particular dishes, etc.
  • I am unsure if I want the judges to be randomized or not, but if they are, I think the first of the three judges should be revealed now.
  • Competitors then place one recipe card from their hand into their active recipe slot, face-down. Once both have selected a card, then they turn them face-up. Additional recipe cards can be added to your worktable as well during this phase, if you have any (I'm unsure if I wants these face-up or not).
  • Then the cooking phase starts, where competitors take turns, with the following phases per turn:
    • Prep: Any status conditions or buffs that expire at the end of the previous turn are removed. If there's some sort of tapping system, then cards with be untapped as well.
    • Draw: The competitor draws a card from their deck.
    • Recipe Card: Optionally, add recipe cards from your hand to the worktable, if there's space.
    • The next actions can be done in any order and are optional:
      • Add one (?) ingredient card to any of your recipe cards on the playing field.
      • Play any technique cards you have, as long as their requirements are met (similar to item cards in the Pokemon TCG).
      • Play your chef card once, if you have the conditions and resources to do so.
      • Lastly, the competitor performs a single action: swap your active recipe for a recipe on your worktable, level up any recipe to the next phase (not sure if I want recipes to have phases or not...), or complete and serve your active recipe (move it to the serving platter).
    • If a dish a served, a single judge is revealed.
  • Once three dishes have been served in total (from either competitor), the first (?) judging phase starts. Which is as follows:
    • I am unsure if I'd like all three dishes to be judged, or have the competitors select one of their dishes from the serving table to be judged. I am not sure what I will do if one of the competitors has no dishes served yet.
    • Either way, the given dishes will be judged and given a number a points from each judge based on quality of dish, quality of ingredients, competition themes, and individual judges' preferences. Whichever competitor has the most points will win the round.
  • If there are multiple rounds, these steps will continue until three rounds have been played (or perhaps until one competitor has won three rounds?). The competitor with the most wins, wins the competition, obviously.

Does this sound like a decent concept to y'all? Is there anything that sticks out to you or you think is missing? I also have some specific questions:

  • Should technique cards be included, or are they adding unnecessary complexity to the game?
  • Generally, how many cards are in a deck for a faster-paced game? Is it fun to be fast-paced or is a slower speed preferable?
  • Should the chef cards be included, or are they adding unnecessary complexity to the game? I like the idea of a player building decks around their chef card, but it might be too complex.
  • Should recipe cards have phases? For example, a preparation, cooking, and serve phase. Or is it better to just have recipes have a set of ingredients that are attached and then they're served immediately?
  • Should the judges be randomized, or does it make more sense to have them announced before the competition, to allow the player to strategize beforehand? What feels the most fair?
    • I will admit programming the AI for the rival would be simpler if the judges are "announced" beforehand.
  • Would it be better to have multiple fast-paced rounds, or a single slower round.

Please let me know what you think! I'm really trying to settle on what I want to do exactly for these mechanics, and plan to playtest it with my partner, some friends, and then maybe some card game enthusiasts that I don't know personally after that. :]

Thank you for reading!

20:26 UTC


Anyone going to LevelUp this weekend in NJ?

What games are you looking forward to playing??

If you have time, feel free to come playtest my prototype at Booth A5 in the Diamond Ballroom!

19:50 UTC


Thoughts on marketing with the "no AI" pledge/logo?

So over all i know there is a distaste for AI in our field, but I'm curious if you would say that customers feel the same? Most importantly, if I slapped that "no AI" image (this one: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/g8E2xZ) on my box, would people care? Could it net me some interest?

For my current project I'm doing everything by hand. Hand painting everything with watercolor on paper and i'm recording video of myself doing so just to help drum up interest in my project. I'm not sure if this will work to get the word out about my game, but it's worth a shot, i think. I'm a one man show, after all. So in light of the extent I am going so far, would it be wise to even advertise that no AI was used in the production of my game?

Terraforming Mars has gone the opposite route and is proud of their AI slop. https://www.gamesradar.com/terraforming-mars-ai-art-controversy/ Which.. I honestly hate but that's me. They also are selling units like crazy.

It makes me curious if the average consumer is turned off enough by this stuff where I can capture some sales for doing the opposite. Is there enough desire for stuff that is completely human made?

edit: Thanks for the input guys. I'm going to go for a more positive "hand made" type thing and show a little picture of me painting the art myself. Positive instead of negative advertising.

18:30 UTC


Game Mechanic for Market System

Hey, fellow game designers! 👋 I'm currently working on a game project and I'm looking to implement a dynamic market system that fluctuates based on supply and demand. I want the in-game economy to feel immersive and responsive to player actions.

  1. As players buy and sell items, the price should increase or decrease from the base price accordingly.
  2. The game design is not particularly difficult. Similar to Catan, 7 Wonders, Small World, Terraforming Mars, Dominion, and Lords of Water Deep. Gameplay lasts around 45-90 minutes.
  3. Due to its intermediate complexity, the game mechanics should avoid being overly difficult, intricate, or time-consuming. I'm not seeking a cumbersome mechanism that precisely mirrors supply and demand dynamics. Instead, I'm looking for a system that generally fluctuates based on the goods being sold or purchased.

Does anyone know of a game mechanic that exists or has any cool ideas, experiences, or advice on designing a market system that feels dynamic and engaging? I'd love to hear your thoughts and learn from your experiences! 🎮💡

18:18 UTC


How easy should it be for "bad guys" to win in a social deduction game!

Hi fellow designers! I'm working on a social deduction game inspired by reality dating shows. In the game, you play as a contestant on the reality dating show trying to find love and couple up with one of the other contestants.

The catch is that every player starts off with a secret Intention - you're either here for the "Right" reasons or here for the "Wrong" reasons." Both types of contestants are trying to couple up with someone here for the "Right" reasons, which means that if you're here for the "Right" reasons and end up with someone here for the "Wrong" reasons, you lose while they win.

The "Wrong" reasons contestants also have another win condition where if the show's Viewership ever reaches 10, the game immediately end everyone here for the "Wrong" reasons win, and everyone else loses.

So unlike other social deduction games, the game (called Lovestruck) is NOT a team-based game. While contestants here for the "Right" reasons can all lose together, they win individually based on who they couple up with.

Throughout the game, players have opportunities to gain information, usually at the expense of increasing the Viewership. As a result, the key tension throughout the game is players deciding whether to do what's in their best interest (e.g. gain individual information + boost viewership) or what's in the best interest for the group (e.g. defuse the tension and decrease viewership).

I'm almost done with the game but I'm just balancing a few things. My main question is, for people who like/have designed social deduction games, what would you say your general expectation is for social deduction games in terms of how hard it is for each side to win?

e.g. Do you generally expect the default outcome to be the "Good Guys" win and the "Bad Guys" have to be the one to take a risk to sabotage? Or do you expect the default outcome to be the "Bad Guys" to win, and the "Good Guys" have to stop them by really sussing them out?

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts regarding designing social deduction games as it may impact the final balance of my game based on the ratio of certain cards I put in. Thank you all!

16:58 UTC


Resource Repository Post.

Please send links you know about board game design.
* Links to download free games print&play for personal use, ranging from kindergarten games to adult games. (mind some quality.)
* Game design resources, either click&download grapnics or make-it-online tools.
* Rulebooks, manuals for similar games.
* Drafts&Sketches for inspiration.

13:21 UTC


Market Rate Mechanic

Hey, fellow gamers 👋 I'm currently working on a game project and I'm looking to implement a dynamic market system that fluctuates based on supply and demand. I want the in-game economy to feel immersive and responsive to player actions.
As players buy and sell items, the price should increase or decrease from the base price accordingly.
The game design is not particularly difficult. Similar to Catan, 7 Wonders, Small World, Terraforming Mars, Dominion, and Lords of Water Deep. Gameplay lasts around 45-90 minutes.
Due to its intermediate complexity, the game mechanics should avoid being overly difficult, intricate, or time-consuming. I'm not seeking a cumbersome mechanism that precisely mirrors supply and demand dynamics. Instead, I'm looking for a system that generally fluctuates based on the goods being sold or purchased.
Does anyone know of a game mechanic that exists or has any cool ideas, experiences, or advice on designing a market system that feels dynamic and engaging? I'd love to hear your thoughts and learn from your experiences! 🎮💡

05:35 UTC


Can mechanics be copyrighted?

Sorry if this is a stupid question. I'm assuming no, similarly to music you can't copywrite chord progressions.

However, I have been working on my skirmish wargame and I find myself really liking the activation mechanic from A Song of Drum and Shako's (I know the mechanic originated in Blade and heroes) and it would fit wonderfully with my game however is that something which can be copyrighted? Or merely how the mechanics are written in game?

Which leads to another conundrum, there is only so many ways to write the rule.

Such as ripping the mechanic verbatim from the rule book is an obvious big NO.

22:44 UTC


Design Flaws concerning Marble Pieces

I am currently designing a TT game that focuses on a 1v1 "marble battle arena" format.

I suppose my question is, are there any things that just really irk you when it comes to marbles or marble pieces?

For instance my current and biggest issue is the "table bump"... If someone bumps into the table, perhaps grooved areas for keeping general areas separate...?

I have been working on this in my spare time (just bought a house and have been renovating) but want to give it the time it deserves, and I believe I have a game people will enjoy. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

21:19 UTC


I made a post 3 months ago about a table top game i was helping a friend with.

Hello everyone. I just wanted to give an update to a post I made some months ago.
My previous post: https://www.reddit.com/r/tabletopgamedesign/comments/17gcmo6/im_having_trouble_helping_my_friend_with_his_card/

So as of now we are looking to get potential playtesters on TTS to try out the game or on our deck editor to theory craft some decks.
If any one is available 1/29/2024 at 7pm me my friends are going to do a playtest of the card game in TTS.
We have a basic website, and a discord.
A Rules document for the game with added pictures.
A deck editor for those of you who just like to theory craft some interesting deck ideas.
Your all invited to check it out play at your own time or join the playtest.

So Here is the updated card design.
We are using stable diffusion and mid journey for the card art and some of the icons. along side some word i did in Figma and affinity designer.
I understand that there me be issues with this going forward.
I was laid off last month so I do not have any finances to afford handcrafted art but I wanted to convey the scale and sense of the game we want to produce.
This is still pretty early as we have just entered the public playtesting stage of the game.

If anyone is interested please ping here, join the discord, test out the game anything is appreciated.




20:53 UTC


I made a game, nobody seems to care, but I think the design is super tight

19:07 UTC

Back To Top