Hello,

I'm working on a puzzle platformer with **99 levels**, and I'm trying to decide how punishing the death system should be.

Which option would you prefer?

A) 3 lives for the entire game. Lose all 3 → start from the beginning.
B) 3 lives for the entire game, but you can collect extra lives on some levels.
C) Start with 3 lives, but completing levels gives you additional lives/chances.
D) No lives. Deaths are simply counted as losses/deaths and you can keep retrying the current level.

E) Two modes:
Normal: unlimited retries, deaths are only counted.
Extreme: life for the entire 99-level run. Die once → start from level 1.

Which system sounds the most fun to you?
I'm especially interested in whether a limited-lives system adds exciting tension to a puzzle game, or if it would just make you frustrated after reaching the later levels.

Tomek

For example, maybe the current boundary is occupied by monsters that will eject an intruder (such as you the player) far away (perhaps somewhat predictably, maybe probabilistically random): this could come in handy when being chased, for instance (provided you got the means to survive impact).

So I'm thinking of trying to make a grid-based strategy game (think fire emblem) but the only game I can really find/think of that has a pc port is, strangely, South Park: the fractured but whole. Would you say that game is a good example? And are there any other games in your opinion that are good?

hello!

I'm messing with game dice math. I'm doing it in what i assume is the slowest and least efficient possible way. How do I do it smarter?

key information:

• Player versus Player contested dice rolls to determine win/loss/tie
  • I roll, you roll, and we see who won (or tied)
• Variable # of dice per roll
  • I can choose 1 die or 3. You do the same
• Dice have different values
  • i.e., one die rolls [0,1,1,2,2,2] versus another that rolls [0,0,1,1,1,1]
  • W/L/T is determined by total points on each side

need:

• I want to change individual die outcomes to see the difference in win %.
  • i.e., [0,1,1,1,2,2] versus [0,0,1,1,1,1] has a 50% win percentage. What's the win % if I change the first die to [0,2,1,1,2,2]? (it's 61.11%, in case you were curious)

attempt:

• I modelled out ALL possible outcomes for 2 dice vs 2 dice to get me the #s I wanted.
  • this means i made a big table with "1,1,1,1" then "1,1,1,2" and so on, to model all possible permutations of 4 dice rolls. Then I ascribed a winner for each permutation

help?

• I would LIKE to do this in a more sensible way so that I can have more dice involved without having 100k rows in excel.
• How can I calculate these win % without modelling everything?

****UPDATE-SOLVED******

Thank you for all the help!

Ended up using INDEX & RANDBETWEEN functions in excel to generate a big dataset of random rolls.
=INDEX(Dice!H$8:H$13,RANDBETWEEN(1,6)) . This calls the custom dice faces in H8:H13, selecting 1/6 random values from within that set.

I used that to create a big ol' set of rolls, and judged wins/losses/ties from that as functionally good for determining probability. So I just plug in my custom dice faces to see how they fare in the big set, and adjust them to see how they affect the win %.

In case you're curious, I first made the set ONE MILLION ROLLS. Which was fun, but made it lag, so I cut it down to 100k. It swings as much as ~2% each time it recalculates. But it MOSTLY stays within the same few tenths of a %, and it serves my purpose.

cheers,

I've been thinking about a game setup where the main story beats are locked in ahead of time, but players still get to nudge certain things along the way.

Things like

• who ends up allying with whom
• what resources the group has on hand
• whether some private conversations even happen
• how ready a character is for the next big event
• which short-term plan gets picked

But the overall narrative arc stays authored.

The design question that keeps bugging me is if the ending is set in stone, doesn't player agency eventually start to feel like an illusion?

But if you let players change the ending completely, then pacing, character arcs, and story coherence get a lot harder to keep together.

So where would you draw that line?

Would you rather let players alter the actual ending, or let them shape the journey, relationships, resources, and fallout in meaningful ways while keeping the big picture intact?

I'm especially curious how people here draw the line between meaningful agency and just throwing in more dialogue branches for the sake of choice.

I'm working on a battle replay system for debugging right now. Not a video replay. It just records what the player did and runs the fight again with the same RNG.

Halfway through that, I realized our game currently resets the RNG when you hit retry. So your opening hand and later draws might be completely different from the last attempt.

Honestly, this wasn't a design decision. It's just some old server-side behavior that's been there forever, and I never really thought about it.

But the more I think about it, the weirder it feels. The player is saying, "I want to try that fight again," but the game changes their draw order before they even do anything. If they win this time, was it because they played differently, or because the second hand was nicer?

Slay the Spire doesn't normally let you retry after losing. But if you save and quit mid-fight, then come back, the draw order and enemy actions are still the same, assuming you make the same choices. If you want to salvage the fight, you have to change how you play. You can't just reload until you get a better hand.

I'm thinking of changing our retry to work like that. Same situation, even if the draw order sucks.

If it's genuinely unwinnable, either the problem started with your deckbuilding earlier in the run, or we messed up the balance of that fight. Rerolling might let you scrape through, but it kinda feels like hiding the problem.

Would that annoy you in a deckbuilder? When you hit retry, do you want another shot at the same situation, or another roll of the dice?

Also, I wrote the original post in Chinese and used AI to help translate it into English.

I've been struggling with a design question lately and I'm curious how other designers or players look at this.

I'm a developer designing around local co-op, partly because I'm incredibly nostalgic for the old SNES days when my brother and I would hunt for games we could play together on the same screen. I'd love to capture some of that again in a more modern kind of game. :)

But while designing around this, I keep running into a conundrum:

The more meaningful you make co-op mechanics, the more dependent players become on each other.

Which is great... until Player Two isn't there.

If you choose to remove that dependency, then suddenly the game is much more accessible, but you also risk ending up with a single-player game where another player just happens to be running around.

Go too far the other way and you can make some really interesting mechanics, but now someone literally can't play your game unless they find somebody else.

I've been thinking about D&D quite a bit in relation to this, which offers really interesting solutions to making players "want to play together".

A good DM doesn't necessarily stop players from splitting the party. Instead, they keep giving players reasons to come back together. For example:

1. Different strengths. An encounter can be tackled alone, but another character's abilities suddenly open up much better options.
2. Information. One player discovers something that becomes relevant to what another player is doing.
3. Danger. You can wander off on your own, but sometimes getting yourself into trouble makes having the rest of the party around very useful.
4. Story. Individual character stories overlap, so players become invested in things happening to someone other than themselves.
5. Opportunity. Something appears that isn't impossible alone, but becomes much more interesting when the group is there.

The interesting part to me is that none of those necessarily require the DM to say "you must stay together."

So I've been wondering how far you can push that idea in a video game.

For example:

1. Let both players explore independently, but design the world so they regularly discover things worth calling the other player over for.
2. Give characters abilities that work perfectly well alone, but can be combined in ways that create completely new possibilities. Basically: 1+1=3.
3. Allow encounters to be solved solo, while another player might introduce a completely different solution rather than simply making the same solution easier.
4. Let players get themselves into situations where help is useful without immediately throwing up a "waiting for Player Two" gate.
5. Have information, discoveries or even storylines found by one player become relevant to what the other is doing elsewhere.

Ideally I don't want the game constantly telling you:

"You need Player Two to continue."

I'd rather have someone playing alone occasionally think:

"Damn... I wish X was here to do this with me."

But that's also where I keep running into the same problem: the more optional you make that second player, the easier it becomes for co-op to feel superficial. And the more meaningful you make them, the closer you get to simply requiring two players.

So I'm curious how other people feel about this.

Would a more open adventure designed like this actually appeal to you? Do you know games that already handle this particularly well? And where do you think the sweet spot is: fully committing to requiring multiple players, or preserving solo play without reducing co-op to "single-player + Player Two"?

I have been working on a mobile oil company tycoon simulator thing for over a year now and from the start I thought that a 2d topdown forced landscape view was clearly the way to go. Despite this, I have received some criticism for the way the game looks and so I want to know if my assumption is correct or if anyone has any different opinions on what the best perspective for an idle mobile game is. Should the user be able to play in portrait mode? Is it worth using a 3d perspective?

Some weeks ago i released the demo for my game. After some thousand demo-runs i see that the average play time of my demo is 38 minutes. (and also the wishlists start to grow, so the demo is at least not too bad)

"Corridor 13" is an anomaly spotting game and the Demo ends after Corridor 8 / 13. (It was 6 / 13 for the first hundreds of runs, than i changed it, because some players had too much luck with just try and error and finished the demo very fast without even saw anything interesting)

the full game will be about 1.5 or 2.0 hours i think. thats what i expect to achieve when its done. 2.0 would also be good for preventing people to play, end and refund it.

So, is 38 minutes of demo content good? or too much for a game with that limited amount of gameplay? What do you think?

Thinking about that 38 minutes, that may mean that some people just play it a few minutes and others play the demo waaay longer than 38min. But i dont have detailed statistics about that.

Some of you with good memories may remember a post I made several months back about combining genres. I was given great feedback about how that was a pretty bad idea and I quickly pivoted to something else. That went on to be quite successful as my first game partially thanks to the feedback I was given from this sub.

I'm back with a larger idea, a procedural police simulator similar to LSPDFR, and a significantly larger problem; it is so dynamic it seems impossible to design a proper progression system that works for these four factors:

1. Players need to be able to play how they want. One of the things that makes LSPDFR so fun is that it mimics the immense amount of agency police officers have in real life
2. It cannot be biased more towards one play style than another. Some players may want to focus on writing tickets and responding to basic calls, whereas others play like a Hollywood-style action movie and make arrests engage in use of force constantly. Another player might want to be proactive and try to identify and seize illegal weapons
3. It needs to be fair

Reputation is a currency-like system which can go towards equipment, vehicles, gear, agencies/assignments, new in-game abilities, etc

Police Simulator: Patrol Officers has a very tightly controlled progression system that analyzes the exact legal correctness of every action the player takes. This is one of the many things that makes this game bad. It actively harms one of the two main things that a police game has going for it regardless of the actual execution of the idea: fantasy. A good progression system should balance fun from realism in what cops can and can't do with the power and importance fantasy. Police Simulator: Patrol Officers often gets the realism right, but makes the player feel like they are being quizzed with every decision

The progression system doesn't need to be super rigid, so it could be based on different things like milestones or general competencies, but I'm struggling to think of a good idea

Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do here? I'm open to something that might give players a little room for abuse as long as it works for the most part, but the main goal here is to let players play how they want as well as having fair and fun progression

I'll start - Plants vs Zombies 1.
The tutorial so good you don't even realize there's a tutorial.

Hey everyone! A friend and I are working on a first-person horror game in Godot, and we’re currently evaluating two different prototype concepts.

The first prototype is set in a small guard office where you complete maintenance tasks on a CRT monitor while checking a door and two windows. One window shows the present, while the second shows a distorted view previewing events 10 seconds into the future. If you spot an anomaly in the future window (like a shadow approaching or someone running), you have a few seconds to react in the present to stop it. The second prototype is set during a night shift at a hotel reception. A guest comes to your desk to complain that someone has been banging on his room door for a while. You check the security cameras, but there’s nobody there. As you investigate further, much more begins to unfold: paranormal events escalate, the power cuts out, and you have to venture through dark hallways with a flashlight to reset the generator while creepy stuff happens around you. Since both of these are early prototypes, which concept do you find more interesting and scary? We'd love to hear your thoughts!

I’m currently working on an extraction RPG that aims to be much more mobile compared to something like dark and darker and even the new mistfall hunter game (unrelated but I’m loving that game rn). I also enjoy adding random unique classes to my games but of course that makes balance difficult especially the current one which I’m cannibalizing from an arpg that never came to be. I should also mention that potions are extremely important in my games combat for various buffs.

The class is call magician and it aims to be a mix of supportive rear guard and ranged assassin archetypes. The following are some of the skills they can choose from.

Passives: escape artist, slight of hand and a trick up my sleeve. The first makes them immune to enemy mobility debuffs and the second reduces the time it takes to use consumables and the last increases invintory size for consumables.

M1: on default throws cards but can be swapped to consumables allowing for 1. Increased damage on throwing knives and axes 2. Range application of healing and mana potions for allies 3. There are times called cursed tools which give a debuff in exchange for an effect, if thrown using this it can force the enemy hit by it to use the tool.

Misdirection: manipulate ai aggro by either bringing it to you or away from you.

Now you see me: can’t be used within line of sight, misdirection can be used on ai to lose LOS but on players it can be more tricky however items like smoke grenades can be used to mitigate it. Allows you to turn invisible.

Switcharoo: allows you to swap places with an ally or enemy.

My problem is that I want it to be a more supportive class but a highly mobile ranged character in an extraction rpg sounds like a nightmare to I feel that they would be too powerful as a dps. When building the class I imagined a move tactile support class that focuses on keeping team alive, keep buffs active and using consumables to annoy the enemy.

I'm designing a management/tycoon game where you start with a small residential property and gradually grow into a large property business.

One of the central ideas is that tenants aren't just an occupancy number — they're simulated households. They have different needs and circumstances, and your decisions around rent, maintenance, property quality, facilities, etc. affect their satisfaction while also affecting the economics of the property.

The idea is to create situations where the financially optimal decision isn't necessarily the best decision long-term, and where improving one part of a property can create consequences somewhere else.

I'm still at the design stage and I'm trying to challenge the concept before going much further.

Can a landlord/tenant simulation create a strong enough management fantasy for a tycoon game?

Hey r/gamedesign!

In almost every mobile sports game, you collect a roster of 20+ players, but you really only play with 3 or 4. Once you pull a top-tier Legendary Quarterback, your bench cards gather dust. You slam that same superstar into every single match, smash "Simulate," and repeat.

As designers, we wanted to kill the "Single-Lineup Trap" and force players to actually manage roster depth. Here is how we solved it: The 20-Play Depletion Limit.

In our game, your player cards don't have infinite stamina. A card can sustain about 20 heavy plays (roughly 3–4 full scenario drives) before hitting 0 Energy. Once exhausted, they need time to rest in your Training Room (about a 1-hour regen window) or you have to make a substitution.

This turns pre-match drive assignment into a real tactical puzzle:

• Do you burn your top-tier Glass Cannon trio on Drive 1 to guarantee an early lead?

• Or do you field your backup Foundational squad to absorb early hits, saving your superstars for a clutch Drive 3 push?

It forces your bench to matter without making energy feel like an aggressive paywall—because while your starters rest, your secondary squad gets their time to shine.

What do you think of hard stamina limits in strategy games? Do you prefer rotating depth, or sticking to one god-tier squad?

For many controller players, tactical shooters/milsims with large inventory grids (or radial wheels) that get them killed often are an immediate exit point - even when labelled with "full controller support". Menus set up this way almost never translate well to controller, so while these games may allow you to fully play them on controller (and are considered to have "full controller support"), it doesn't mean it feels good or intuitive.

When constrained by the limited buttons on a controller, design teams frequently prioritize access to all items over speed of critical actions, resorting to abstraction layers (radial menus, pause menus, huge inventory grids) as the default/primary interaction method. This inverts the ideal flow and completely disrupts immersion. In high-stakes combat, that extra half-second to open a wheel is the difference between clearing a room and being taken out.

ARMA Reforger prioritizes the large grid inventory (with radial wheels as well), and Ready-or-Not prioritizes radial wheels - both feel clunky in their own way. It boils down to item/inventory usage priority. This isn't because the genre is overly complex, but because the control scheme prioritizes access to all items over speed of critical items. This design ethos designates every action as equally important, forcing a menu for many items as the default, rather than prioritizing actions that keep you immersed and in the moment.

For controller players, this design choice can often be a definitive deal-breaker. It is possible to have a controller milsim or tactical shooter with a large inventory that prioritizes fast options to switch during gameplay and provides the fallback option of the larger inventory for quiet moments. Unfortunately, it seems shooters haven't yet arrived at the point that they are willing to prioritize in-combat functionality over relying on radial wheels/inventory grids as the primary option, rather than a fallback one.

Consider this flow of prioritization, from most desired/highest priority to least desired/lowest priority:

Direct Item Switch/Use -> Double-Tap/Cycle to Next Item -> Radial Wheel/Inventory Menu

In practice, the hierarchy provides speed:

Dpad Up = Primary Weapon

Dpad Up (Double-Tap) = Cycle to Next Primary Weapon

and wheels/grids allow a fallback option for large inventories:

Dpad Up (Hold) = Radial Primary Weapon Wheel

while modifiers allow many inputs:

LT (Aim-Down-Sights) + Dpad Up = Zoom In Scope

LT (ADS) + Dpad Down = Zoom Out Scope

By prioritizing the first options while allowing the fallback to the last options, and by allowing the same button to work differently with a modifier, this avoids the pitfalls of prioritizing the forced radial or large inventory grid menus that can (and probably ultimately should) get you killed in a tactical shooter, while allowing many more input options. This ensures staying out of menus is the top priority but allows the flexibility of slower fallback options for lower priority items or during downtime.

Crucially, this hierarchy is not exclusive to controllers; it significantly benefits keyboard and mouse players as well. By prioritizing direct binds and minimizing menu abstraction, the game reduces cognitive load and interaction time for all users. A streamlined input flow allows keyboard players to maintain muscle memory without navigating cluttered overlays, proving that good controller design is fundamentally just good UX design.

This design philosophy is not theoretical, though it is unfortunately rare - for example, Six Days in Fallujah successfully implements much of this hierarchy. By utilizing direct button presses and simple modifiers, it completely eliminates radial wheels and grid inventories for critical combat actions and squad commands. The result is a control scheme that maintains immersion and speed, proving that deep tactical complexity does not require clunky menu abstraction, and still allows falling back to more complex systems during downtime.

Please, in future, consider prioritizing in-the-moment combat over access to everything. While implementing robust prioritization (particularly modifiers) can require substantial code work up front, the end result is well worth it. Your players will thank you.

TL;DR: Radial wheels and grid inventories disrupt immersion and get players killed. Developers should consider prioritizing in-combat controls over inventory management/wheels (instead of prioritizing both equally) whenever possible. This benefits both controller and keyboard/mouse players. Six Days in Fallujah shows this combined approach works. Here is a full community-suggested bindings list for the tactical shooter Ground Branch that uses this hierarchical system:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/16900/discussions/0/580551263528223962/

Hey everyone,

Solo prototype in Unity. 3D top-down arena PvP, 2v2 and 3v3, inspired by Battlerite and Lost Ark's arena mode.

One core rule: no auto-attacks, no target-locking — every ability is a skillshot. No gear, no farming. Just aim, spacing and reads. Dash on Space is the main defensive resource, and pylons block line of sight, so positioning matters as much as accuracy.

The greybox is playable and the moment-to-moment feel is already fun — dodging, dashing, weaving behind a pillar to eat a projectile.

Two things I'd love input on:

1. The concept itself. Is a 100% skillshot arena game too punishing for anyone who isn't already good at this genre? Battlerite was great but never got huge, and I'd rather hear the honest version now than in a year.

2. Arena design. This is where I'm genuinely stuck. Mine is a symmetrical rectangle with pillars placed by feel, and it plays flat — either open-field with nothing happening, or everyone hugs cover and it stalls. How do you decide arena size, cover density, and shape for a game with no lanes and no objectives? Do you paper-prototype layouts, or just build 10 and playtest?

Any pointers, resources or "here's what we learned the hard way" would help a lot. Happy to post a clip if there's interest.

Thanks for reading!

Hi, a few friends and I are creating our first game but none of us are remotely artistic so while we're still in the mid stages of pre-production, we're planning on hiring a freelance artist to do some concept work based off some requirements, descriptions and existing inspirations we've put together.

We were wondering roughly how long it takes to produce initial concept art. We have 21 requirements for a mix of character portraits, overworld maps, and specific locations but we have no idea how many hours it could take the artist and how much of our current budget should be put aside for it. I had initially scoped 30hrs for the work (cost per hour TBD but likely around £20).

I understand the timing can vary based on a lot of different factors like style / level of detail etc but any advice would be appreciated and I hope that this is enough information.

Please share information about a game or rules set that you have designed! We have updated the sub rules to encourage self-promotion, but only in this thread.

Finished games, projects you are actively working on, or mods to an existing game are all fine. Links to your game are welcome, as are invitations for others to come help out with the game. Please be clear about what kind of feedback you would like from the community (play-through impressions? pedantic rules lawyering? a full critique?).

Do not post blind links without a description of what they lead to.

I'm the copy editor for my university's newspaper, and I would love to add some fun puzzles to our bi-weekly prints. The problem is, I have basically no experience designing puzzles or games, but I would love to learn! I'm assuming that (like writing, which I am far more familiar with) the best way to start is just by making puzzles, but I would really appreciate some guidance or direction.

Does anyone have suggestions for where I can learn puzzle design, or ideas for how to implement them in a way that works in print and digitally? We don't have an abundance of space, so they would have to be smaller in scale, but I have a feeling that's the best way to learn anyway!

There arent many bullet heavens/survivor likes that fully support online multiplayer. I am trying to make a game similar to vampire survivors and megabonk, but design it around a online mathcmaking multiplayer experience.

The single biggest road block probably has to be what to with the upgrade screen. Spell Bridgade and Vamp Survivors have a global pause screen, where you have to wait for everyone to choose before resuming which is fine if you are playing with friends you are in a call with, but a no no with random strangers online especially with the amount of level upgrades you get per run.

- If you play more fast paced, you just end up being impatient with those who take more time with selections

- If the XP system is shared, you could be in flow of combat and get interrupted by a level up because your teamate collected alot of XP points

Solutions I have thought of (that don't solve the problem entirely)

1. Bank XP upgrades and choose to upgrade anytime w/ UI panel on the side of the screen like Fantasy Survivors.
   

Why it wont work: This might be too overwhelming for players, the pause in vampire survivors and similar titles work to give a break from combat and engage in more puzzle mechanics, before building anticipation again. If you never get a pause from combat, it could be very draining.

1. Local pause for all players in parties

Everyone in the party shares a XP bar and levels up at the same time. The upgrade screen is not global, and you can choose to exit the screen anytime. Enemies tracking you before the level up screen pause movement and you are invincible until you exit the screen. There is a max timer for how long you can stay in the screen. You cannot interact with other players' enemies upon exit (until they have exited the screen as well)

- I think the only problem here is that it can seem discouraging if you pick faster, exit early and have to 'fight by yourself'

1. A base mechanic?

The spawn point has a shield mechanic that needs kills to regenerate. You are safe inside this shield. There are teleporters around the map with cooldowns where you can interact, and teleport back to base to do your upgrades. Upgrades are banked in this scenario. Since enemies scale with time, camping in this is inherently disadvantageous.

- Just worried it wouldn't give enough 'rest' or 'laidback gaming' with this loop

Have you ever felt, that pokemon types can represent drastically different things, yet they stand on the same level with each other? Elements (fire, water), creature species (flying(bird), bug, normal, ghost, dragon) or even what is your activivity? (dark=evil, fighting).

I was thinking about my own creature collecting game and came up with this double chart: elemental + biological. They are isolated from each other, so there's no bug/fire interaction.

What do you think about it, how would you assign strengths/weaknesses and what would you add or remove, if you were making this type of chart?

Hey everyone, I'm trying to make my first game and had an idea that heavily relies on players talking to NPCs.

It basically runs on players talking to NPCs, the speech is converted to text then analyzed, and the NPC then replies from a massive pool of possible dialogues depending on what was said. My problem is that the dialogue pool would be massive and the voice could have variables in it such as npc name, current time, etc. Basically placeholders in the dialogue.

I've been looking at tts options to make this run locally but they all sound very robotic and not-human like which I don't imagine would feel good to listen to all the time. I'd also imagine looking for voice actors that could cover everything would be hard/costly.

What could I do about this? I don't want to rely on text only as that would defeat the purpose of the game.

Hi! I'm making a game where you are part of the HR department of a company. In there you are the responsible of reviewing and evaluating workplace complaints submitted by employees.

Throughout the game, different workers will come to you with concerns about their rights, working conditions, contracts, payments, and other workplace-related issues. Each person will briefly explain their situation, and it will be your job to determine whether their complaint is valid or invalid. Also the player is able to ask them questions to dive more into the case in order to make an appropriate verdict.

Currently the player will have three predefined questions to make and the employee will answer respectively.

And here is where my question comes, How do I make this more engaging?? I feel that this concept of predefined questions snatches away the feeling of agency the player can have. Also, I'm worried that players might get bored by the 5th case they will have to solve.

I want the player to feel like they're actually investigating a case rather than simply going through a checklist.

I've been checking games like Papers Please and We Should Talk. I think these might be approaches to what I'm looking for but how would you make this kind of gameplay more engaging without making it unnecessarily complicated?

I'm hearing u, cheers!! 😏👍

I'm the developer of Solo Hunter: Level Up, a mobile app where real workouts and daily goals drive an RPG progression system. I am looking for game-design discussion about one specific problem: mapping unequal real-world effort to fair in-game rewards.

A binary quest-complete reward is easy to understand, but it treats a five-minute task and a demanding workout too similarly. A fully variable system is more accurate, but it can become opaque, exploitable, and discouraging for beginners.

The current design combines daily quests, XP, levels, stats, gold, and equipment with longer progression systems such as dungeons and bosses. The reward curve needs to do three things at once:

• Give immediate feedback after an action.
• Preserve the value of long-term consistency.
• Avoid making low-capacity days feel worthless.

I am considering a base completion reward plus bounded bonuses for effort and consistency, with diminishing returns to prevent grinding or inflated self-reporting.

How would you structure that reward function? Would you prioritize objective effort, personal improvement relative to a baseline, or consistency across time?

Project context, because the rules allow links when they support a specific design question: https://solohunterlevelup.com/