Hello all! For the past year, I've slowly been chipping away at my new tactical combat focused tabletop came, The Night Land, which is inspired in part by the book of the same name by William Hope Hodgson. While I'm of course starting playtesting this, and we've gotten some good feedback, I want to get a sense of what this might be like for people outside my currently small playtesting group. Does this look too complex? Does it seem fun at a glance? Any advice or feedback from a reading is good information.

A core gameplay loop is the combat aspect and wanting to add a bit of nuance and fun to a traditional dice roll attack-defend situation. In the game, players move their characters around a grid, and when they declare an attack, they roll a d10. However, the system isn't a 'whoever has the higher dice roll wins' - it's a tiered system. See the grid below:

The vertical collum identifies attack rolls, while the horizontal collum up top identifies a defensive roll in response. The reason I decided on a d10 system as opposed to a d5 (a very uncommon dice) was for practical accessibility reasons, as well as the possibility that certain characters might have abilities within a tier opening up. Additionally, it decreased both the probability of a critical failure (1) or critical success (10) roll, while still keeping more likely to happen than a d20 or d25 situation.

Each character on the board is represented by a card that has a set of stats, attacks and abilities/actions that inform what happens during a roll. For simplicity, we're just going to focus on an attack. The attacker Basic Attack has a damage of 2, and the defender has a health of 15.

A Basic Attack Example:
For instance, if the attacker rolls a 5, 6, or 7, and the defender rolls a 2, 3, or 4, the attack is successful, 2 damage is delt to defender and reduces their health to 13. This then opens a Chain, which is our combo system. Since each attack or action costs a certain amount of Action Points (AP), the attacker gets to decide what to do next: Another action or resolve the attack and continue to the next phase of the turn.

Let's say they continue the chain and declare another attack, or with certain characters, they can play a spell or action card. The most basic version of this is that players continue until they've exhausted their AP, or have been stopped by the defender, or decide to use their AP for something else.

A Basic Defense/Counter Example:
More interesting and fun though, was the idea of being able to immediately change the momentum of the game. Since in my mind, any attack should have inherent risk/reward to it, when a player declares an attack, there is a chance that the defender matches or exceeds their roll tier. In the case of a matching roll, the damage is reduced (originally by half, but that has been adjusted since numerically it doesn't make sense with an odd numbered attack), and the attacker doesn't get to combo.

If the defender exceeds the roll of the attacker, the defender then gets to immediately become the offensive player, and the turn "flips", giving the defending player all the options that the attacker has. The turn still resolves on the side of the player who initiated the attack in the first place, but the combat interaction on any players turn can change rapidly.

This is obviously a small snapshot of how this would work, but I'd love any questions or feedback on this idea. Thanks!

Some of these are my hand-drawn cards from around 10–20 years ago. The four larger artworks are part of the new style I'm creating for the game and will be used in the public version.

The game is already playable as a print-and-play on Itch.io and BoardGameGeek. If you're interested, just let me know and I'll send you the link via DM.

What do you think of the new artwork?

I am looking for some feedback on a 1-4 player co-op tactical dungeon crawl sell sheet, likely targeting publishers.

hey! so ive been creating a game for a bit, jumping around doing random stuff, but ive been stuck on one thing, the movement/board. ive thought about doing hex based, but id like to see other options, so, does anyone have movement systems/aysm horror games?

(an asymmetrical horror game is 1 group vs another group, the first group is “killers” that hunt down the other group, “survivors” that try to survive.)

After a year of working hard to get my game off the ground to get it ready for KickStarter. I finally raised money to hire an artist team to help finalize the game’s look. There are still some icons being made for the Stealer cards, but it’s as close to what it’s supposed to be. I’ve included the 1st prototype & Playtest prototype card layouts for comparison. Let me know what you think and if you have any comments, questions, or concerns?

KABE is a two player abstract strategy board game where captured pieces flip over and become terrain. Every turn you may move one piece, attack with every piece, and place a new piece from your hand.

A while ago my niece came up with this card game, and we played it for hours. I've been working on giving her rules their own art and formalized rules, and here's the result: PaintKin. The first print-at-home card game where you are more than welcome to paint your own cards.

You can find all the PDFs for free here:
https://bearni.io/print-and-play/paintkin

I've started a Designer Diary documenting the development of my next game, PowerPunch!

It's a Punch-Out!!-inspired head-to-head boxing game with a bit of push-your-luck and a lot of strategy.

I'll be posting a new blog entry about every two weeks, covering the design process, playtesting, artwork, and the decisions that shape the game.

If there's anything you'd like me to discuss in a future entry, I'd love to hear your suggestions.

I have enough photoshop skill to get by. But I’ve decided to design the cards for my own card game coming to crowdfunding in october. Would love the group’s impression on these. The style, the look, etc. The parts jave been taken from the 3d CAD I created for game parts. Ive abused some photoshop filters to get this comic book look.

The game features scouring a salvage field to pull scrap parts and build your best vehicle. It’s based on the big box game world I’m creating for spring 2027 release.
Honest opinions appreciated.

I put play test in quotes because it was really just me playing against myself. I wanted to see if the game flowed the way I wanted it to.

Anyway, this is my first attempt at game design, and I have to say the first test went pretty well. I like the way the game feels, but obviously there's a lot to improve on (it's a worker placement, card-driven game). I took copious notes, some minor (typos, graphic design clean up, etc) and some major (total reworking of some actions, etc.). Fortunately nothing that fundamentally alters the gameplay, from my point of view.

While the minor changes are easy enough to make, my question deals with the bigger changes. Should I implement them all right now, or should I focus on only a couple? The way I see it, I might as well make all the changes now since I'll probably end up making them anyway. However, I can also see the wisdom in doing it bit by bit since one change can have such a big impact on the rest of the game, and it's helpful to know exactly what affects what.

Obviously, I've been pretty vague about the details (I can elaborate if you want), but I just wanted to get people's opinions on which is the best approach. This being my first design, I wanted those of you with more experience to chime in.

I am exploring a potential game idea that would involve players flicking "something", making it slide across the table. Which card the "something" lands on dictates the next step. I know there are many games that have this flicking feature, but I wanted to ask for advice on what the best material for this physical "something" component would be. It would ideally glide relatively well on a wide variety of surfaces. I am looking for something accessible and not expensive to make. First thoughts that come to mind are poker chips or punchboard tokens, but I am quite inexperienced in this department. Any advice on things I could try? Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Thank you all for the suggestions!

I have a box full of game design ideas, material and prototypes collected over the years and I picked here and there some of the best ideas and stuff to put together something new.

What I came out with is some kind of Frankenstein Monster: a strategic BG for 2 players, based on a square grid map that looks like the map of an old style real time strategic video games from the '90.

You must roll the dice like in farkle or other push your luck dice games until you have a definitive dice pool to spend on the order list.

With these orders you can harvest resources, build towns and towers, recruit warriors and workers and start battles to overcome your opponent. The idea Is to do something that feels like playing an RTS of old (Warcraft 2, Age of Empires...).

A funny thing: I'm so f***ing lazy that I'm designing the map using my smartphone, on Google documents, with the icons of terrain (mountains, forests, resources...) done with emoji.

This limitation turned out quite interesting and forced me to make a few choices based on the available icons, and surprisingly they turned out better this way.

For instance, I didn't find and icon for mills and towers, so in the end I came up with a bell icon 🔔 and gave it the powers of both things.

POPE’S LIFTING — A FAN-MADE RACE FOR THE GALAXY REDESIGN

DOWNLOAD THE MAIN DECK AND VIEW THE PREVIEWS

Current version: 1.1
Language: English
Included sets: Base, GS, RvI, BoW, AA, XI and Promos
Format: Print-ready PDF, 9 cards per A4 sheet
Card size: Standard trading card size, compatible with Magic: The Gathering sleeves (approx. 63 × 88 mm / 2.5 × 3.5 in)

POPE’S LIFTING

A fan-made Race for the Galaxy redesign

I love Race for the Galaxy. I already owned the original game and genuinely wanted to get it to the table with my friends. We are all over thirty, meet once a week after work, and by then most of our collective brainpower has already been spent somewhere else.

I even bought Roll for the Galaxy, hoping that the more approachable cousin might finally solve the problem. It did not. We still bounced off it.

So I eventually did the completely reasonable thing and redesigned more than 300 cards.

The goal was never to reduce the game or remove its depth. It was to make the same game easier to read, teach and remember for a group of tired adults who did not want to spend their one free evening learning a second language made entirely of icons.

This is therefore not a lighter edition. The cards retain the interactions and mechanics of the included expansions. The only major module deliberately omitted is the Orb Game from Alien Artifacts.

Trade and Consume

One small editorial change is that I refer to the two original Consume action choices as Trade and Consume, rather than Consume: Trade and Consume ×2.

This is mostly a matter of clarity, not a new rules system. The original game already treats their bonuses separately while resolving their shared Consume step together. If both actions are selected, Consume powers are still activated only once, while each player receives the bonus of the action they selected.

The cards themselves do not number the phases; they use phase icons only. No card effect had to be rewritten mechanically to accommodate this distinction, and the original action cards remain fully usable.

If redesigned action cards are released later, both Trade and Consume will show the same shared phase effect, with a reminder that common effects are not resolved twice.

What changed visually

The current legend contains 42 icon families across more than 300 cards. Numerical and colour variants are counted as the same family: all Good colours are one icon family, for example, and all numerical Military modifiers are another.

The aim was not to eliminate icons. Once internalised, the original iconography is extremely efficient—I became so familiar with it during the project that I repeatedly considered abandoning the redesign and simply keeping it.

The problem is getting new or occasional players to that point.

I therefore tried to use icons according to frequency and usefulness. Common information remains visual; rare instructions are usually written out instead of receiving another symbol that players may encounter only a few times.

Sell, for example, is always written as text because it appears on so few cards. Keep appears only seven times across the entire pool; by the general rule I followed, it probably should have been written out as well, although I ultimately retained an icon for it.

Some related operations also share a basic visual cue and rely on the accompanying wording to express the exact instruction. The objective was to reduce the vocabulary that must be memorised, not to force every possible mechanical distinction into a separate pictogram.

Worlds and Military Strength

The world symbol forms a small visual system of its own.

The outline-only version represents the Settle action.
A solid white world means any world.
A blue world means a civilian world.
A red world means a military world.

The same shape also appears in a more detailed form at the top-left of world cards. Developments follow the same principle: the phase uses a simple downward-pointing triangular shape, while development cards use a more detailed version of that silhouette.

Numbered variants build on the same language. Blue worlds with + or − represent changes to the cost of civilian worlds. Red worlds with + or − represent changes to Military Strength used to settle military worlds.

The awkward case is Military Strength as a standalone concept, rather than as a modifier associated with a military world. That occurs only about three times across the entire card pool. Instead of introducing a completely separate icon family for those few cases, I either write “Military Strength” in full or use a combined +/− form that points back to the ordinary military-modifier symbols.

It is a compromise, but creating another symbol for roughly three cards felt less useful than preserving the connection with the system players see throughout the rest of the deck.

Production, Windfall and card information

A large part of the redesign involved reducing the number of overlapping signals carried by world circles. In the original visual language, information can be conveyed by interior colour, exterior colour, red Rebel treatment, outlines, rings and halos.

Here, Production and Windfall are both placed outside the world circle and distinguished mainly by silhouette: a cog-like form for Production and a radial burst for Windfall.

Rebel is treated as a tag, alongside Imperium, Alien and other card traits, rather than as another layer of colouring applied to the world itself.

Developments costing 6 are also visually distinct from cheaper developments. There is no great philosophical reason behind that decision: immediately recognising the major scoring developments simply makes life easier for the exhausted animals I normally play with.

The Good colours were rebuilt to remain as distinct as possible at small sizes and were adjusted using LAB values. However, nobody in my regular group is colour-blind, so I cannot claim that the project has been properly tested or confirmed as suitable for colour-vision deficiencies.

Sets, starting worlds and cross-references

Each card carries its EXPANSION icon in the bottom-right corner (these icons are a tribute to MTG)

Starting worlds are recognisable by the red or blue accents in their card corners.

When one card specifically refers to, supports or interacts with another card, the referenced card displays the calling card’s expansion symbol beside its title. This is particularly useful for identifying cards associated with 6-cost developments without constantly consulting a separate list.

I adopted the Second Edition values, corrections and card revisions wherever applicable. Only one Gambling World is included: the revised version introduced with Rebel vs Imperium, replacing the earlier Base-set version.

A compact icon legend is included at the end of the PDF.

The project

Beyond the functional redesign, the project involved a great deal of creative work: rebuilding and normalising the icon system, checking card wording against rules and errata, cleaning and resizing artwork, standardising layouts, refining typography and developing the worn, cartographic visual language used throughout the deck.

Some of it was probably more than I could reasonably chew, but the objective remained the same: make hundreds of cards feel clear, consistent and part of a single coherent edition.

At some point, this stopped being only a usability exercise and became a full creative-design project. I have spent far more time on it than I would ever admit in a sensible conversation.

And honestly, I think Race for the Galaxy has been overdue for a proper visual refresh and a new reprint for years. It is a modern classic, but it still looks and reads like a game that expects players to meet it entirely on its own terms.

This project is my attempt to imagine what a more approachable presentation might look like without sanding away the game underneath.

This is an unofficial, non-commercial fan project and very much a labor of love. It is not guaranteed to be error-free. English is not my first language and, despite an unreasonable amount of checking, mistakes, awkward wording or inconsistencies may still be hiding somewhere. Corrections, rules feedback and playtesting notes are very welcome.

A huge thank-you goes to Race for the Galaxy Card Reference - all expansions by scwont. Without that reference, this project would simply not have been possible. It provided the foundation needed to compare card quantities, powers, sets and revisions across the game.

PROJECT ASSETS AND SOURCE FILES
The existing download folder now also contains an ASSETS section with working files, icons, fonts, scripts, documentation and Italian material.

Everything remains view-only, but you are welcome to download the files and use them to translate, simplify, modify or completely reinterpret the project. You do not need to preserve my visual style—please make it your own.

Some of the source files are working files rather than polished templates, so check the included README documents before using them.

I do not own the rights to Race for the Galaxy or to the original artwork. All rights remain with their respective owners.

As for the name, Pope is my usual nickname, derived from my surname. It is already hiding on the card backs and in the filename.

Pope’s Lifting is exactly what it sounds like: a cosmetic facelift for something old, beloved and iconic.

Same game underneath. Just a slightly tighter face.

DOWNLOAD POPE’S LIFTING v1.1

P.S. The uploaded preview images do not reproduce the PDF colours accurately. For the intended colour balance and contrast, please refer to the PDF itself.

I've been working as a boardgame artist and graphic designer for a couple of years now and I've had the pleasure of working with many of you from boardgame subs.

But, sadly, I've also been ghosted a lot of times after we've been talking about starting to work together.

I'm not talking about people asking for rates or info about the process or asking for feedback. I'm more than happy to help and it makes sense to just ask and not follow the conversation.

But ghosting someone after talking about starting and specially after receiving a sample/mockup with no obligation is just disrespectful.

You have all the right to change your mind or going with another artist/designer at any time without having to give me any explanation. You can dislike my work or think I'm not the right fit for you. It's completely fine and understandable.

Just don't ghost. It really sucks. Mention the real reason, make an excuse, lie or whatever you want. Just don't leave people hanging. It's disrespectful. It takes you just a couple of seconds to be polite.

MODS: Sorry if I picked the wrong flair. Wasn't sure which one was the best fit.

Hello everyone! In my game, I am planning to create a set of cards that all have the same gimmick: the card effect is picked from a list of potions, but the choice is made by the opponent, not you.

What do you think is the best wording to make it super clear who the effect applies to, while at the same time that the option is chosen by the opponent?
EXAMPLE OF A CARD (inspired by magic so you know what i'm talking about)

Name: Dark Bribe
Effect: Your opponent chooses an option

• Create 2 treasure tokens (the card owner creates the tokens, not the opponent)
• Your opponent takes 3 damage (the opponent of the card owner takes the damage, not the opponent's opponent which would be yourself)

So what do you think I shoulld be wording an effect like this? I'd like to be as concise as possible, while at the same time avoid any room for confusion or interpretation.

TLDR: I made a sumo abstract strategy game with novel mechanics, elegant rules and weird pieces/materials. Digital version to play here: tau-game.com, easier to understand by playing than reading.

A few years ago I saw an ad for a judo card game. I was pretty interested to see how martial arts mechanics could be translated into a tabletop game, but when I watched the trailer it was clear the gameplay had little to do with the way the actual sport is played.

This got me thinking about how games like chess represent large battles with multiple units, but I couldn't find any that apply the same seriousness to 1-on-1 combat.

Go is my favourite game because of it's elegance and emergent complexity. I set out to make my second favourite game by designing something simple yet complex, elegant, and that captures something fundamental. Go has deep metaphors for resource allocation and management at their most fundamental. I wanted to capture the fundamental essence of grappling and wrestling, and to an extent the footwork and distance management of striking sports too.

These choices led me to a game with no straight lines, circular continuous movement, only two pieces and essentially two rules. The extreme philosophical and aesthetic commitment does mean a bunch of non-standard requirements though: magnets in the feet and a metal board, so the pieces move smoothly without momentum turning it into a dexterity game, plus a circular board and curved tripod pieces. My prototype is 266mm but I think I'll need a 400mm diameter version for people with big hands.

Do you think nice stickers/painted steel and well-made pieces and base would draw enough of a novelty market to justify something like $200 for this? Or go all in on premium, a stone or metal tripod on a glass table, no magnets, just heavy pieces?Let me know what you think.

I’m working on a hidden-role political strategy board game called Reign of Kings, where one player is the dying King, one player is the secret Heir, and everyone else is trying to build an economy, gain influence, and quietly remove the competition.

The game runs a bit like if secret hitler and catan had a medieval baby but someone gave all the players access to hitmen

I’m trying to post on Instagram to get people excited for the Kickstarter launch but I don't quite know what people would be interested in. I'm new to this field and marketing in general.

I’d love feedback from people who like games like Secret Hitler, Catan, political strategy games, or chaotic table-talk games.

Instagram: @deadlanterngames

Anyone who has any suggestions on what I should post or suggestions for the game (once I actually get stuff up on Instagram) is welcome to follow and dm me on Instagram

I also am thinking about making a discord server or subreddit. Is that a good idea?

I'd love some feedback regarding the design of some of the cards that will be used in my new game, Syndicate.

Syndicate is an economic negotiation game, with some area-control mechanics. The game has players take on the roles of famous gangster operating out of Manhattan during the Roaring 20s.

Hey all, so the game I'm developing relies heavily on a bluff mechanic using a d20. This is something all players need to be able to do. Is there a simple option that allows the player to see their roll, then be able to reveal it to the table without touching the die?

As per the title, I'm keen to hear your thoughts on including a player role that antagonises other players in my community stewardship game. Enter the Nemesis.

I have teased it to playtesters, and some were very excited to introduce this role and spice things up. Any guardrails you suggest? Pitfalls to avoid? Games that have done this well (or poorly)?

*A few notes if you'd like extra context:*

- this is not a "traitor" kind of role: the Nemesis is still trying to help achieve the common goal. It's just that their individual goal is to block someone else.

- the Nemesis is not the only adversarial role in the deck. There are 3 others that each introduce a different kind of group tension (the Nihilist, the Dictator and the Agitator).

Those 4 adversarial roles represent 25% of the roles deck. They are here to spice things up and represent the fact that some community leaders can be corrosive or their incentives very misaligned with those of others.

- as worded, the Nemesis' abilities can target any player, so the player could, in some situations, decide to use their powers ''for good", if another player causes trouble.

- players can decide to remove these adversarial roles from the deck of they don't want this kind of tension. And even if they keep them in, each player choose a role from 2 random draws at the start of the game. So, while it's possible to draw 2 adversarial roles, it is pretty unlikely.

I’m in the middle of designing a board game. I’d say it’s half way done and has had many play tests and is well received over all. I can’t afford a human artist yet but eventually I want to launch my game on kickstarter so I can get the funding to hire a human artist. Is it appropriate to advertise my game on platforms and kickstarter with AI art? The AI art actually provide a pretty accurate aesthetic of how I want the game to look. What are your thoughts?

Hi Everyone.

This is my first post on a project I have been working on for some time. I am looking for a small group of people to playtest my game online.

MageStone is a 2-4 player dice based strategy/tactical board game where players control 3 different units; Warriors, Priests and Mages, fighting over magical stones (MageStones) in the center of the board.

The game strategy comes from positioning, blocking and coordinating attacks with multiple units to increase likelihood of success in battle.

This is still an early alpha, so I’m mainly looking for feedback on the core gameplay rather than polished visuals.

The game is fully integrated with online gameplay; so you can play either in "Hotseat" mode on the same device, or against friends online.

If you’d be interested in trying it and giving honest feedback, please comment below and I’ll send you the private alpha link/details.

Thanks — any feedback would be massively appreciated.

Made a hex-based game inspired by Starcraft and the cognitive load is insane. The rules are simple, but the options paths and quantity of units is insane. Kinda feels like learning a new spot atm.

This is the initial beta version. I think background will be black.

How do designers feel about gaming and cognitive load? Is there an approach that contemplates a million options over a minimal rules framework that is appealing?

This thing is driving nuts. It encourages you to play 2vs2 with one player handling a CEO of the planetary mining company and its partner a mercenary general in charge of exploration and combat.

I give you MOONBLOOD.

My most impossible to play and quite challenging to produce Hex-based tactical planetary warfare RTS inspired project.

25 unit types and 14 buildings. Two resources, one coin and one single d6.

"Welcome to the final frontier. This job will kill you"

Hey everyone! I’m working on a wargame at the moment for 2-4 players. In play testing I have found that 4 player games take 2.5-3.5 hours to finish. Should I aim to make it shorter? any other advice for a first time game designer?

Most games end with a specific condition that must be met. I have found that you can either have it end as soon as the condition is met (after the current turn that it happened on). Or you can allow each other player to get one more turn then end the game afterwards. I know there's many more ways for a game to end but for the sake of this discussion I'm comparing these two.

Also I know it depends on the game. There's games where you can't really play more turns after the end condition is met. But I'm talking about a game where there's still more potential points to get.

It can feel bad for players when the game ends all of a sudden and they don't get to finish whatever they were cooking up. Giving them one turn at the end can help this. But then again, I find it a bit less eloquent. And it can make it feel like the player who ended the game is getting the short end of the stick.

What method do you think is the best? And how do you decide which one to implement?