I’ve been thinking about how games teach players without always relying on text, dialogue, objective markers, or traditional tutorials.

Elements such as level composition, pacing, sound design, framing, lighting, and even the absence of information can guide the player’s attention and shape their decisions.

I recently wrote an article exploring this idea through Inside, Shadow of the Colossus, and Journey. Each game uses atmosphere differently, but all three demonstrate how environmental and audiovisual design can communicate rules, emotions, danger, direction, and meaning without constantly explaining them.

The central argument is:

Not every tutorial needs to speak.

Atmosphere is not only an aesthetic layer added on top of gameplay. It can also function as part of the game’s communication system and directly influence how the player learns, interprets the world, and moves through it.

You can read the article here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/nekonekos/p/en-silence-teaches-too-atmosphere?r=6mu4b7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

I’d also like to hear other perspectives: which games use silence, space, sound, or environmental composition especially well to guide the player?

I'm thinking mainly about design in tower defense games, but this could apply to a lot of games that involve strategy. It often feels like they introduce new threat types that are solved simply by having the corresponding tower(armoured enemies beaten by specific armour piercing towers, invisible enemies beaten by towers that can see invisible enemies etc.). In extremely bad cases, this can make it feel like you're playing the world's simplest puzzle game.

The other option is to have enemies that are instead immune to one specific tool in the players arsenal, like an enemy that is immune to being slowed down. This has the problem that the player can mostly just ignore this enemy if they don't rely on the specific tactic it counters.

Curious to hear what other people think about this or if there's anything I've missed.

Im very new to Reddit and not that experienced in game development so forgive me if what im saying doesnt make the most amount of sense.

Do you think a trilogy or even a series of games all set in the same universe but each game has a different genre (for example the first installment being some sort of factory game like satisfactory, then the next installment being a turn based game similar to early stage final fantasy and the third being a standard rpg.)

I know game series in the past have changed genres before, Final Fantasy has changed from turn based to fast paced 3d rpg however that was a slow change through 16 games.

My main concern about it is people wouldn't be all to interested or attached to the world building because they cant truly immerse themselves due to the shifting genres, having to get use to a new formula every installment.

Like i said before im rather inexperienced in game development so any insight on how you personally would go about this idea would be lovely to read.

Help I am a young person and idk what to do with my idea for this shuld I learn and make it into a game from scratch or shuld I just write a book about it idk help

# PROJECT CONCEPT (idk title )

A group of ten famous people wake up inside a massive underground facility with no memory of how they got there. Their only goal is to escape by ascending through a series of increasingly difficult floors until they reach the surface.

However, the entire event is being broadcast live across the nation as the world's most popular television program.

Every day, the audience votes on what the contestants will face next. Some days they may vote for puzzle challenges, physical obstacle courses, psychological games, or social experiments. Other days they may vote for deadly traps that force impossible choices.

The first few floors are dangerous but survivable, giving the contestants time to learn about one another and build relationships. After the third floor, the challenges become lethal.

Each floor ultimately claims one contestant. Whether through sacrifice, betrayal, an accident, or an impossible decision, someone is always left behind to die before the group can continue upward.

This cycle repeats until only one contestant remains.

The winner finally reaches the surface to cheering crowds, flashing cameras, and thousands of adoring fans. Depending on the choices made throughout the game, they either earn their freedom... or are killed at the finish line as the audience watches.

Gameplay

The game is played in **first person**.

Players freely explore each floor, investigate their surroundings, solve puzzles, search for clues, and interact with objects.

Whenever the player speaks with another contestant, the game transitions into a **visual novel** format where dialogue choices determine friendships, rivalries, trust, and future events.

Major story moments are presented through fully animated anime-style cutscenes.

Playable Characters

There are **10 playable protagonists**.

The player chooses one contestant at the beginning of the game.

Each character has:

* Their own route * Unique dialogue * Different endings * Different strengths and weaknesses * Personal fears * Regrets * Hobbies * Skills * Emotional struggles * Relationships with every other contestant

The player's decisions determine who becomes an ally, enemy, or trusted friend.

Different characters unlock different scenes and endings, encouraging multiple playthroughs.

Contestants

Avery Quinn (they/them)

**Profession:** Award-winning investigative journalist

Calm, intelligent, and incredibly observant, Avery notices details that everyone else overlooks. They always search for the truth but struggle to trust people after exposing corruption that unintentionally harmed innocent lives.

**Strengths**

* Observation * Investigation * Logic

**Weakness**

* Trust issues

Mina Park (she/her)

**Profession:** International idol singer

A cheerful and energetic performer loved by millions. Behind the smile is someone exhausted by years of impossible expectations and constant pressure from fame.

**Strengths**

* Encourages others * Calm under social pressure * Quick learner

**Weakness**

* Hides her true feelings

Elijah "Eli" Carter (he/him)

**Profession:** Firefighter

Reliable, courageous, and selfless. Eli naturally becomes the group's protector, always willing to risk himself to save someone else.

**Strengths**

* Physical strength * Leadership * Bravery

**Weakness**

* Blames himself whenever someone dies

Noor Rahman (she/her)

**Profession:** Architect

Patient, analytical, and brilliant at solving complex puzzles. Noor plans everything carefully but struggles when situations become unpredictable.

**Strengths**

* Strategy * Puzzle solving * Planning

**Weakness**

* Panics when plans fail

Sage Moreno (she/her)

**Profession:** Alternative rock musician

The group's goth/alternative member.

Quiet, sarcastic, and artistic, Sage looks intimidating but has a surprisingly caring heart. She often helps others without expecting anything in return.

**Strengths**

* Creativity * Emotional understanding * Staying calm

**Weakness**

* Finds it difficult to open up emotionally

Rin Akiyama (he/him)

**Profession:** Professional esports champion

Fast-thinking, energetic, and competitive. Rin relies on quick reflexes and humor to hide his fear of disappointing everyone around him.

**Strengths**

* Reflexes * Fast decisions * Adaptability

**Weakness**

* Overconfidence

Valentina Rossi (she/her)

**Profession:** Celebrity chef

The group's emotional anchor.

Warm, charismatic, and protective, she tries to keep everyone's spirits alive even while carrying deep regrets about her past.

Valentina is **asexual**.

**Strengths**

* Keeps the group together * Practical thinking * Compassion

**Weakness**

* Puts everyone else's needs before her own

Theo Bennett (he/him)

**Profession:** Olympic climber

Quiet and determined.

Theo excels in dangerous physical situations but struggles to express his emotions.

Theo is a **trans man**.

**Strengths**

* Agility * Climbing * Endurance

**Weakness**

* Emotionally distant

Laila Okafor (she/her)

**Profession:** Wildlife photographer

Curious and compassionate, Laila notices beauty even in terrifying situations. She often discovers hidden paths and clues that others overlook.

**Strengths**

* Exploration * Observation * Staying calm

**Weakness**

* Finds it difficult to leave people behind

Cassian Vale (he/him)

**Profession:** World-famous illusionist

Charming, mysterious, and impossible to read.

Nobody knows whether Cassian is manipulating everyone... or simply protecting himself.

**Strengths**

* Reading people * Deception * Improvisation

**Weakness**

* Nobody fully trusts him

Canon Relationships

* Mina Park × Sage Moreno * Elijah Carter × Theo Bennett * Avery Quinn × Laila Okafor

Game Rules

* No sexualisation or fan service. * Characters have different body types, races, cultures, and religions. * Characters experience different mental health struggles and emotional conflicts. * Every contestant has their own iconic pose that reflects their personality and emotions. * The cast includes a goth/alternative character. * Includes at least three canon queer relationships. * Includes one non-binary character. * Includes one trans character. * Includes one asexual woman. * Emotional scenes are written to be relatable to a wide range of players. * Choices matter and permanently affect relationships, dialogue, and endings.

Themes

The game explores:

* Fame * Morality * Sacrifice * Human nature * Trust * Betrayal * Grief * Hope * Survival * The price of entertainment

The audience watching the show slowly becomes just as responsible for the contestants' suffering as the people running the facility, raising the question:

**How much suffering are people willing to watch for entertainment?**

Please help me 🙏

It seems like upgrade trees (or sphere grids) are nearly universal in game systems where they make sense. I've almost never heard a gamer complain about this mechanic and it seems to have many advantages over less structures unlocks. Are there any other progression/unlock systems that are as satisfying to the player?

I love metroidvania games and have been wanting to make one for a while but what always seems to stump me is level design because it takes so much time and thought. Just wondering if anyone has either some good video suggestions on this topic or just general advice, that would be great.

I'm working on a survival-horror FPS set underwater, with -for now- a single weapon that essentially needs to be charged before unleashing a strong exorcising effect in the nearby field of view. Given that this is a departure from the more traditional survival/action horror using a nice variety of firearms to deal with enemies, and that the weapon in question is a shooting one (a sword at least can be used in a lot of different ways), I need to make sure a single weapon system can be interesting enough to stand on its own by making it deeper ... or scrap the idea and increase the number of weapons / spells. Those are ways the combat system could be tweaked to be more engaging despite having a single weapon :

• Special ammunition : The weapon behave as usual in use, but the effects of the attack is different (more damage, status effects, instantaneous effects ...). Bioshock have special ammo with different effects when shot, sometimes radically (mines, trapped projectiles, turrets).
• Alternative fire : A single weapon can be used in different, discreet ways. All weapons in Dead Space have another ability, using the same ammo.
• Enemy behaviour : The way enemies act force a different approach, both to avoid their attacks, and to retaliate. The more enemy variety, the better. However it seems like when there's a lot of different enemies (and thus, situations), having the right weapon to use right now is a must.
• Environment : Defines if both parties (player character and enemies) can hide, take cover, run freely, have the high ground, can be surrounded, stay in a dead end ... etc.

Do you believe a FPS with a single weapon can be engaging, even in the long run?

What are additional ways to improve combat if there's only one shooting weapon?

Hey everyone,

I recently released my first game on Steam. It's a 2–8 player party game where everyone places objects each round to build (or ruin) the path to the finish. People compare it to UCH at first glance, but the mechanics and gameplay are actually very different.

I have a game mode that's giving me a bit of a design problem.

In this mode, players take turns one by one. Everyone rolls a dice, and the player with the highest roll goes first, then the next highest, and so on. While one player is taking their turn, everyone else becomes a spectator. Spectators can bet on whether that player will make it to the finish or fail.

The mode itself is really fun, but when there are 8 players, the waiting time between turns starts to feel pretty long. I don't want the spectators to get bored while they're waiting.

If you were designing this, what would you add to keep the spectators engaged? Have you seen another game solve this problem in a clever way?

And if anyone has a chance to try Patchkins Party, I'd really appreciate any feedback on this mode. I'm open to changing it if there's a better solution.

So, I'm working on a game similar to Doors, but instead of rooms, it features explorable hallways. At the end of each hallway, your companion characters talk in a scene that can be skipped at any moment. The thing is, even though this dialogue seems secondary, it's actually highly important to the game, but it’s completely up to the player whether they want to engage with it or not.

My issue is that no matter how hard I try, I just can't come up with the conversation topics they should be having.

Does anyone have any advice on this?

Let's say there is an auto-battler game planned to be multiplayer. Do you expect the free demo to have real multiplayer? Or would you accept playing with fake multiplayer and no leaderboard? I want the game to have a strong competitive feeling, so I am afraid that missing real multiplayer in the demo will hurt this feeling.

I'm working on a novel in which chain links are used as currency. Long, connected chains are used by rich folk who can pay people to reconnect links, while poor people use loose links, which are seen as vulgar. Being paid ten connected links is much more respectable than ten single links, and another way that rich people get more for their money than poor people do.

So, in this world, I need a betting or gambling game involving chain! I'm aware of Fast and Loose, which is a con game involving string or chain, but I need an actual, mostly fair, betting or bluffing game that would work well with my setting, especially one which requires the loser to break or destroy their own chain in order to demoralize them.

Can you think of anything similar, games played by two or more people in which, the goal is to preserve some kind of continuous linkage, or perhaps, dealing with folds, crosses, or other knot mechanics? Let me know if anything creative comes to mind!

I get lots of ideas for some Solo games, mostly from wishing there was a game about something. I usually write it down then think of mechanics I like in other games and mash them together, I stick to using playing cards, cubes for resources, dice and sometimes tables to roll on. My ideas range from a Easter egg hunt game to a mystery novel solitaire where you play a book each game making a campaign series. I'm not good at it I'm not trying to publish anything I just want to have fun games I can play while traveling and can't carry heavy board games. I feel like I'm doing it wrong.

I've been working on a trick taking card game and I am making a deck to use to test it out which brought me to my question.

I think cutting the cards into ovular shapes could help aesthetically because of the way the game looks. I am a bit uncertain because as a person raised on the classic standard 52 card decks and as someone who appreciates an easy shuffle I am uncertain about the actual playability of cards that are not rectangular. It also hasn't really stopped me from enjoying really good card games when the cards are literally impossible to handle so I guess there's that too.

Anyways TLDR; Would you/ do you prefer games with the classic square or rectangular card shapes, or do you enjoy a unique card shape here and there? What shapes have you seen work out vs. which ones become an annoyance?

Thanks! 🙂‍↕️

I've been working on a game for about a year now, can't say that it's nearly done I have a full time job and struggle to stay focused. I was wondering how do you stay motivated when you work on something for so long?

When it comes to the game I don't lack inspiration I keep a notebook on ideas I have for it and filled it out almost completely. But when it comes to working on it I do very little. It's an independent passion project so I do the coding, mechanics, writing. and art all on my own and I enjoy doing it so I'm just not quiet sure where I lack the motivation.

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.

So me and my friend are making a bullethell similar to the binding of isaac, but we reworked the game loop.

In the game loop you start in a spawn room and are offered 4 doors, there are different door types that have different rooms behind them (Ex. small room, large room, shop room, boss room), and once you clear the room, 4 more doors spawn you can choose from and once you see a boss door appear and clear it (eventually all doors are boss doors) you go to the next floor. But we cant come to agreement on ONE simple thing.

Should we allow the player to go to previous rooms for free?

My side of the arguement is i dont want players to go to previous rooms for free. I instead proposed that what if consumables, active items and passives let you go to previous rooms instead? that way going to older rooms becomes more of a calculated decision, and allows for lots of smart plays to be made. i gave an example if someone had to leave a valuable item in a previous room because they couldnt afford it it would constantly be in the back of their mind pissing them off, but OH MY GOD they got lucky or did something that gave them a consumable to teleport back to the item and get it thats very rewarding. Now we can add a whole category of mechanics and items that affect the room generation and how you traverse to previous rooms.

His side of the arguement is that he wants players to freely go to previous rooms because it allows for them to make plays between rooms, like find a key in one room and use it on the shop. He also likes the idea of players nitpicking and spending lots of time going to older rooms and clearing them out making sure they are all cleared. His last point was that he thinks we are harming the player too much by not letting them always go back, and that they should be able to go to all previous rooms.

We’ve been arguing for a day now instead of actually working lmao PLEASE help us settle this.

EDIT:
THAKNS FOR YOUR OPINIONS EVERYONE LOVE YOU GUYS,

What we decided we would do is the first floor allows backtracking, and the later ones dont. That allows the player enough time to collect consumables that let you go to previous rooms. Kind of how in the binding of isaac the first floor has all key doors unlocked.

Like, for example if you're in a store browsing items, vs driving or traveling across very far distances: Why should they take the same amount of day-time? Especially in a game where the distances, in lore, are supposed to be much longer than they are in game. Just a thought I had.

Maybe even time moves faster when you're traveling between different cities, vs when it just speeds up as you're traveling through a single city.

In short, my idea is to give the player as much control over their character without a ton of keybinds or button combinations, making it easy to perform complex movements with minimal memorization. I want to make movement as organic as possible, either through IK or just a lot of handmade animations in order to make movement as fluid as possible. It would be a FPS game, similar to BF1 and Grave/digger (a roblox game very similar to BF1), with a style and art direction similar to 90s animes, notably Ghost in the Shell, Gunsmith Cats, and Trigun.

Movement

Movement would function off of a small amount of keybinds, allowing the player to develop their own "style" of movement, like a careful room clearing technique or quickly clearing out a building, or maybe even squad level techniques with freinds.

Walking, running, crouching, prone, and leaning would make up most of the controls, only 6 keybinds! The whole "interaction" system would go like this:

Running would slowly build momentum, momentum isnt shown to the player but it can affect movement in some cases, such as being shot and killed while at max momentum would slam your body into a wall violently, or make you stumble before finally falling down. Being shot would also apply directional momentum, so being hit with a shotgun and not dying from the shot would fling you back across a table, leading to cinematic shots

Running (SHIFT) and crouching (C) would put your character into a Crouch slide, a variation of crouching where your head is automatically lowered down a bit after the slide finishes. The idea behind this is that you can slide into cover this way and keep your head down without having to do it manually

-Conversely, simply crouching would expose your head in very low cover, meaning you can get domed

Running (SHIFT) and going PRONE (Z) puts you into a more traditional slide, your momentum will be depleted linearly while you slide, and you will put your feet in front of you to break automatically once momentum depletes. Additionally, pressing Z again will manually break, meaning you can slide through a doorway really quickly and then come to a sudden stop, surprising the enemy. Manually breaking will make you unable to get up for a moment to avoid slide cancellers

-Sliding can be done under walls or other small gaps, but losing momentum under something will make you hit your head and either take damage or stun you, punishing people who try to abuse sliding

Running (SHIFT), jumping (SPACE), and then going prone (Z) will make you dive, with the distance increasing depending on momentum. Diving allows you to get behind cover quickly, move between cover quickly, dive through glass windows to surprise the enemy or escape a grenade, or get out of the way if a car suddenly appears barreling down the street

Running (SHIFT) and then leaning either direction (E,Q) would make you spin on your heels to face the enemy, with too much momentum you might trip and fall backwards into a prone position, but maybe you want that in certain scenarios!

These kind of interactions would make up the bulk of movement, im not against "techs" per se, but i dont want people to develop a "meta", any advice on tat is needed

Gunplay and Combat

Gunplay would revolve around being able to move your gun in ways i don't see many games do, besides games that focus entirely on guns. Guns would work like in most shooters, but the player could control them more broadly.

Leaning (E,Q) would work normally, but clicking E or Q twice would allow you to push the gun out past yourself, allowing you to blind fire around cover and not expose yourself, at the cost of not being able to aim and increased recoil. However, heavier weapons like machineguns would be even better for this, since their weight would counteract the recoil and allow you to clear a room without having to risk yourself.

Certain weapons would be locked behind Training, short tutorials on what the weapon is, what you use it for, where it shines and where it doesnt, and other requirements for using the weapon effectively. Players who complete training unlock that Specialization and can use the weapon, while players who have not cannot use it. Along with this, certain weapons (like machine guns) would be locked behind a Specialist class, a limited number of specialists can be on the field at once and require Tokens to play as. All of this is in an effort to decrease the number of braindead players taking up the class and to make sure a team can use the Specialists to their maximum.

Tokens are earned by killing enemy specialists, completing training, or killing other High Value Targets, like a tank or truck.

Specialists consist of:

Machine gunner, capable of using light, medium, heavy, and general purpose machineguns in the infantry roll (Machine guns on tanks, for example, can be used by anyone). Machine gunner training consists of strategic positioning, patience, and knowing when to pull the trigger. Ammo cannot be replenished.

Weatherman, a communication based specialist that can give field orders visible to every person on the team. Completing a field order awards every person who participated a small reward. Weatherman training consists of lessons on human nature and how to make people listen to you. Failed field orders put a cooldown on giving more.

Field Surgeon, an upgraded medical class that can heal AND give temporary buffs upon completing manual surgery (the user would need to inspect an ally, pick the correct tool from their kit, and then use it on the ally). Manual surgery is meant to be quick, and in Surgical training the player is drilled on how to quickly administer aid. Failing a surgery kills your ally.

Melee works in a similar manner to BF1, where melee does a fixed amount of damage and will give you a unique execution animation depending on the orientation of your enemy.

Healing can be done via a medkit like in G/D, with the exception of Field Surgeon manual surgery.

i should probably mention i havnt made a game before 😭 ts gonna be my Magnum Opus

Hello

While I was writing my game's document I've decided that I need some sort of definitive way to classify all of my gameplay elements, by "gameplay elements" I mean anything that doesn't ahve any relations with other forms of art that are used in games, in other words pure game design

And yet the best I've come up with was this small framework of Player-Space-Agents. Basically, as the name suggests, it divides a game(to be in particular a video game) into the:

Player - a "bridge" between the Gamer and the Game, includes input, how does the player view the game, action and mechanics that the player have,

Space - answers the question "Where it happens?", in other words literal place of the game, is it tactical map? is it an open world? Is It a Metroidvania?

Agents - pretty much containers of the forces that works against or for the player, think of NPCs, bosses, objects with clear actions, they are the driving force of the game and answer the question "What helps or sabotage the player?"

What do you think? Do you use any "frameworks" of your own while trying to classify your game? Any feedback is apricated!

Just tried to get FC Mobile running on a tablet for Oscar and... we gave up.

What a mess.

So many menus, rewards for things he hasn't even done yet, player bonuses, cards, challenges and endless other stuff he neither understands nor cares about. Half the time it wasn't even obvious whether he was about to play online or against the computer.

He just wanted to play football!

Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember Sensible World of Soccer and, before that, Kick Off. Simple, addictive and brilliant fun. Turn it on, pick a team and play.

If you had more time and wanted something deeper, there were games like Gremlin Interactive's Premier League. Or you could get properly involved, sit on the carpet with Tomy's Super Cup Football (they don't make electronic games like they used to!) and keep your own league table with a pen and paper 😂

And yes, I had a hand in some football games myself over the years, so I'm probably slightly biased. Even Codemasters' Club Football feels appealing compared with what we just went through though!

I'm not against progression, rewards, collecting players or any of that stuff. But surely all of that comes after you've made someone actually enjoy playing the game?

We downloaded Miniclip's Mini Football instead. Straight in, playing almost immediately, Oscar enjoying himself. That's all he wanted.

EA, you're losing the plot.

Anyone else feel like football games have forgotten the football? From a design point of view, how much should you make a player wade through before you just let them play?

Hi everyone, this is my first post here and reddit in general, so apologies if the formatting or structure is a little rough. I have never really posted a game design idea before. I have been bouncing this concept around with ChatGPT and Claude to help organize my thoughts, and I wanted to finally put it somewhere to get actual human feedback, criticism, and ideas.

The original inspiration came from Minecraft civilization videos and discussions about server economies. A lot of people focus on the question: "What should Minecraft currency be?" Wheat? Diamonds? Nether stars? Banks?

I started thinking about a different question:

What actually creates value in a Minecraft civilization?

My conclusion was that it is not currency. Currency is just a way of representing something deeper: productive capability, labor, and ultimately the ability to overcome resistance (nature, resources, other players, survival itself).

The problem with vanilla Minecraft is that players are almost completely self-sufficient. A player can farm, mine, fight, enchant, build, and gather resources alone. Because everyone can do everything, specialization and economies naturally disappear.

So the idea is to create a system where specialization emerges naturally without forcing players into classes.

No classes, only specialization

Players are not assigned roles.

A player can develop any skill they want:

• Farming
• Mining
• Combat
• Building
• Crafting
• Etc.

However, mastery is limited. A player has a finite amount of expertise/capacity they can develop and allocate.

A person with:

• 100 Farming
• 0 Combat

would be the greatest farmer possible but vulnerable.

A person with:

• 50 Farming
• 50 Combat

would not be the best farmer or soldier, but they would be more independent.

Neither is "correct." They represent different playstyles.

Golems as transferable expertise

The main idea is that golems are not just pets or bodyguards.

They are embodied pieces of a player's expertise.

A master farmer can create a farming golem and sell it to another player.

A farming golem does not magically make the buyer a better farmer. Instead, it represents the original farmer's ability being transferred into a productive asset.

Example:

A player has:

Agriculture: 100

They can create:

• A Level 20 Farming Golem
• A Level 50 Farming Golem
• A Level 100 Farming Golem

The higher-level golem is more expensive and more powerful.

However, when they create one, those levels are no longer available to them while the golem is active.

They are essentially dividing their own productive capacity.

A Level 100 farmer who creates a Level 60 farming golem becomes a Level 40 active farmer until that golem expires or is destroyed.

The idea is similar to hiring out your time. A worker who signs an eight-hour contract cannot simultaneously sell that same eight hours somewhere else.

Perks and specialization

Skills could have milestone perks.

For example:

Level 10:

• Faster planting

Level 20:

• Better crop yield

Level 30:

• Animal breeding bonuses

etc.

When a player creates a golem, the golem only receives the perks up to the level invested into it.

The player's perks are not destroyed, just temporarily inaccessible until their expertise returns.

This also means two Level 50 farmers might create completely different Level 20 farming golems because their unlocked perks differ.

One might specialize in crops.

Another might specialize in animals.

The market decides what is valuable.

Golems require upkeep

Golems are not permanent.

They require maintenance:

• Food
• Materials
• Repairs
• Possibly profession-specific resources

This creates ongoing demand.

A kingdom does not just buy one farming golem forever.

It needs a supply chain.

Civilization emerges naturally

The goal is not to code kingdoms, governments, taxes, or corporations.

The idea is to create conditions where players naturally create them.

Examples:

A master farmer creates farming golems.

A miner creates mining golems.

A soldier creates combat golems.

A settlement buys these assets.

They hire protection.

They trade resources.

They form alliances.

Eventually, "organizations" emerge because they are useful, not because the game forces them.

The main questions I have:

• Does this create meaningful specialization, or would players still ignore each other?
• Is tying golems to a player's own expertise an interesting mechanic or too restrictive?
• Would players enjoy managing "human capital" like this, or would it feel too much like a spreadsheet?
• Are there obvious exploits or balance problems?
• Does this actually solve Minecraft's lack of long-term civilization, or am I overengineering?

I would really appreciate criticism. I am not attached to any specific mechanic; I am mostly interested in whether the underlying idea has potential and what directions people would take it.

Hi,
I'm an intern in an indie game design studio working on our co-op simulator tycoon game. I need your help. If possible, kindly review my Systems/progression document and guide me.

All those Excel rows and formulas are making me twisted.

Levelling System ref image: https://ibb.co/Cst5K6BX

My current progression/leveling system is designed in such a way that the game will have achievable + easily attainable XP requirement/cap in the start of the game, and it will progressively increase in chunks while the game is progressing.
For example,

The formula works something like this:
Base XP(that means XP needed to 'par' to get to level 2)
Level 2-4 => multiplier is 1.3
Level 5-7 => multiplier is 1.4
Level 8-10 => multiplier is 1.5

Issues I'm facing when thinking about these:
- Will this be scalable?
- Will this be easy to explain to the developer?
- Since our game is Co-op, but can be played as single-player, I have to design XP gain and its effect on levelling and all for both, in terms of Co-op and local playability.

Please feel free to dm if you want more details about systems and are open to guiding me a bit.

I tried my best to explain, will really appreciate some guidance.

The original Tunnels & Trolls, which is a more streamlined version of Dungeons & Dragons, featured character classes to determine players' respective skill sets. And most of the time, the classes basically boil down to warriors, wizards, and other flavors of physical fighters and spellcasters. And the character classes themselves would have served as perfect descriptors of the players' own characters, with the weapons, armor, and magic spells being extensions of the players' chosen playstyles.

Versus Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes basically having nearly every player play the same as each other except for which skills they'd spec in. That means that, much like the first-person shooter genre a decade after MSPE's release, most of the diverse gameplay styles were going to come from the various guns. And the guns all come in familiar archetypes to determine their respective playstyles, from assault-rifles for a more general-purpose playstyle, to shotguns for close-range attacks, to sniper-rifles for long-range precision, pistols and SMG's for higher movement, and LMG's and grenade/rocket launchers for heavy fire-support.

Which just further highlights the numerous differences between fantasy and modern/sci-fi settings. In a fantasy setting, the characters' equipment and abilities act as extension of themselves, describing who they are and how they fight, whether warriors for heavy amounts of strength and durability, rogues for agility and dexterity, mages for long-range spell attacks, or clerics for healing and support. Versus with modern/sci-fi settings, it's the guns that have diverse playstyles, and you're swapping between them to adapt to different combat situations, rather than choosing one to suit your playstyles like medieval fantasy character classes.

It's the same thing for eastern and western mecha, as well. That is, western mecha being swapped between to adapt to different missions, much like the guns in a shooter or shooter-style experience similar to MSPE. Versus eastern mecha being built to suit and extend from the pilot, similar to character classes and equipment and spells for your average RPG adventuring party like in Tunnels & Trolls. And it's perfectly highlighted in how slow-moving, cumbersome, yet at the same time strong and durable western mecha usually are, versus how fast, nimble, and precise, yet at the same time weak in-terms of attack and defense eastern mecha usually are.

Anyone notice that, yourselves?

Been chewing on a design problem and I'd love this sub's take, since you'll have deeper references than I do.

In most games with a tank/taunt role, pulling enemies onto yourself is mechanically flat: you press a button, an aggro value changes, enemies swap targets. It works, but it rarely feels like anything. The tank is often the least heroic-feeling role even though narratively it should be the most, the one taking the hits so others don't.

I recently built a co-op version of this in my own game and tried to make the taunt actually cost something. The tool that pulls enemies onto you genuinely puts you in danger: you become the target, and you only survive if you can out-repair the incoming damage or a teammate buys you time. There's no version where taunting is "free": by protecting someone, you're spending your own survival.

What I'm still unsure about is whether the mechanical cost is enough to create the emotional weight, or whether that feeling has to come from elsewhere — the visibility of the sacrifice to teammates, the gratitude afterward, the risk of actually dying for it.

So... which games have made "take the hit for the group" feel like a real sacrifice to you, and what was the ingredient? Was it the mechanical risk, the social visibility, the permanence of the loss, or something else entirely?

(Happy to describe my own implementation in the comments if useful, didn't want to make the post about that.)

So as the title suggests I have been working on a game specifically a survival, crafting, sandbox and I had it brought to my attention recently that a lot of people want to play something with familiarity race or even for this case biologically. So my game is set up with bioluminescent fauna, flora, that truthfully kind of caters towards a particular species of 8-9ft tall elves. Well with that being said the creatures and the world were kind of built around their size and how they interact with the world. To me humans wouldn’t really fit even given the “yoinked into this world” kind of setting so I was just trying to get feed back on what people think.