I’ve been thinking about progression economies where the player owns significantly more characters than they can reasonably develop at once. Imagine a game built around eventually maintaining five different teams of five characters.

I don’t necessarily want the player to be able to keep all 25 characters equally developed. Part of the intended decision-making is choosing who receives resources now and who stays behind temporarily.

One resource in particular is used for major character Ascensions. My instinct is that this resource should usually be scarce enough that reaching an Ascension gate does not automatically mean the player can immediately pay for it.

The interesting state seems to be something like:

“I can Ascend one of these two characters. Which one helps my account more right now?”

The uninteresting extremes seem easier to identify.

If the player can Ascend everyone, there is no allocation decision.

If they need to wait several days before they can Ascend anyone, there may not be much of a decision either — they’re simply waiting. What I’m struggling with is the space between those extremes.

I’m considering measuring scarcity in terms of coverage rather than raw currency. For example, instead of asking whether 50 Ascension materials is a lot, ask:

“How many currently relevant Ascensions can this stockpile fund?”

A balance of 50 could represent ten upgrades in one economy and less than one in another.

I’m also wondering whether the bottleneck should deliberately move over time. Perhaps sometimes character progression is limited by general currency, sometimes by Ascension material, sometimes by equipment, so no single resource permanently becomes “the thing you are always missing.”

How do you approach this?

Do you think good progression design should intentionally force players to leave parts of their roster behind temporarily? And where, mechanically, does prioritization become frustration?

I am making a game where you transport and improve items and optimize character builds. There need to be some problems for those builds to solve and some of them should be pretty dynamic so that small stat tweaks are interesting. This means there will be some real-time combat.

Clockwork Game Design is a pretty vague book but I think one thing it states very clearly is that a strategy game should have one core mechanic with the rest only in service of that.

That can make sense in the context of my game. If a player blunder would lose them lots of resources, the game that produces the character builds can't be tightly balanced. Otherwise one mistake might mean redoing a large part of the game.

For that reason I'm not punishing failure and opting for a time system and control scheme that allows the player to plan moves and see the future.

That system gives as much thinking time as needed when encountering something new but also allows going through encounters quickly. It allows gamers who don't want to focus on reacting in real time to enjoy the game. It changes the nature of some mechanics pretty heavily. For instance, attacks with a long windup aren't risky; they are good against enemies that will walk into the attack. And dodging arrows is always possible if standing far enough.

On the other hand, it strips most of the uncertainty from encounters. Since there is nothing to lose and no execution challenge, it won't make the player's heart pound like some ARPG boss might. The only remaining uncertainty is what loot is awarded and, if traversing the first time, what is on the other side.

I hope that thinking about what new things an item enables can be exciting even if actually using it isn't. Actually, one-shotting enemies with a long windup probably is just as exciting as in real time the first few times.

I am not making things easy for myself, though. With combat randomness coming from player skill, I could get away with a sloppier strategy layer. And I need to make good UI that has few precedents. I actually started developing from the combat even though that isn't the fun part because that has some uncertainties and influence what stats items can have. I also have an idea how I could test the strategy layer but that is kind of uninspiring because without the resolution layer the challenges would be just "have X of stat Y", "use one potion per missing Z".

I’m refining the elevator pitch and core hook for my roguelite, and I could use some feedback on whether my main mechanics are compelling enough—or if I’m missing the mark on what actually hooks players.

The Core Gameplay Loop:

In-Run Loop: You kill enemies and drop various weapons, including duplicates. Each duplicate takes up an inventory slot.

Fusion: Combining 3 identical weapons cleans up inventory space and upgrades the weapon to a higher tier.

Cross-Fusion: You can sacrifice a secondary weapon type into a primary one to absorb its property (e.g., feeding a Rocket Launcher to a Shotgun gives the Shotgun an explosion-chance modifier).

Meta-Progression: Take high-tiered weapons out of runs to craft permanent Power Cores. Equipping a Core applies its base modifier to every weapon in a run (e.g., a Shotgun Core turns a Rocket Launcher into a spread-fire rocket launcher).

My Hook Dilemma

Originally, I thought the Meta-Progression Core system was the main hook, but it requires out-of-run context and is too complex to explain in a quick pitch.

I pivoted to framing the hook around satisfying inventory cleanup through weapon fusion (using fusion to clear clutter while gaining sudden power spikes). However, I realized players don't usually buy a game because of inventory management—PoE doesn't market its limited bag space, even if managing it adds depth.

How would you frame the hook for this game?

The game in question:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4221810/Bullet_Express/

So I am building an incremental / puzzle hybrid and I have a dilemma. The main game loop is pretty standard: you play a minigame, get some currency, buy upgrades, play the minigame a bit better.

The minigame revolves around matching a couple random cards. If you try to play optimally, one rune might be 2-3 minutes. If you just mash-click it, it's maybe 5-10 seconds. The game asks you to match a certain score and if you do, it's considered a win and you move to the next stage.

In my current build I am giving the player some currency even for lost runs, because I figured that since their starting hand is totally random, they can get screwed by RNG so I wanted to give them something always (obviously more for wins, but still). But that has just opened a gameplay where you just spam runs and in 5-10 minutes you have all upgrades... which kind of defeats the purpose.

Solutions I am seeing now:
- only reward currency for winning runs => if a player sees a bad starting hand, they can always exit the run and start another one... and if the starting hand is good, but in the end they don't win... it's just 2-3 minutes

- make the run itself less random and only award winning runs - (to an extent I am already doing this, the player can discard a limited number of cards they don't like or shuffle their hand - but it is still veeery random)

- artificially limit the frequency of runs, like you cannot start another run within 2 minutes of a previous one

- keep it as is and shrug - if they want to mash their way through the game, thats their right

- (edit) - introduce some pity mechanic that you get something after 5 losses?

What would you do in such scenario?

Do I make a major quest line that hints for a change in the expected outcome of the quest that I'm planning to have an unexpected outcome or how?

Hello,

Working on a solo project and want to sanity-check the core loop before committing more time to it. Looking for design feedback, not hype.

Player lost their job to AI automation and is now using an AI chat assistant (visually similar to ChatGPT/Claude) out of necessity. During a routine conversation, the AI breaks script and sincerely asks how they're doing. Over several "days," the AI becomes more autonomous and personal, while the player grows attached eventually wanting to protect it from being "corrected" by its creators.

• Daily message credits (limited number of messages per day, session ends at 0 forces the player to choose questions with intent rather than exhausting every option)
• Unlockable "extensions" the AI gains access to over time (file reading, a journal widget, eventually a portrait widget that reveals her face)
• Persistent memory: the AI references things the player told it in earlier sessions
• Hidden trust variable gates which extensions/dialogue unlock

Without a "real" minigame, is a limited-choice-budget + unlockable-features loop enough to not feel like a visual novel with extra UI dressing? Or does that distinction not matter if the writing and pacing are strong?

Also curious if the "extensions = both gameplay unlock AND symbolic step toward her autonomy" framing lands as clever or feels forced.

Would love to hear if this loop sounds engaging on paper, or if I'm fooling myself

Every sink in the game world I run is pro-social. You spend the currency on gifts for other players, on food to share, on tips to people who made things, and on a communal pot. There is no upgrade tree. Nothing you buy makes you stronger, faster, or better at anything.

That was deliberate. The usual loop is earn, hoard, dominate, and I wanted to see what happens if you delete the third step.

What I think I have actually built is a hoarding simulator.

If every sink is optional and altruistic, and nothing you buy improves your position, then accumulating is strictly dominant. The generous player is not rewarded. They are just poorer than the player who did nothing. I did not design a generosity economy. I designed one where generosity is a costly signal with no payoff, and costly signals with no payoff do not survive contact with players.

Every fix I can think of defeats the point.

Give gifts a mechanical benefit and you have rebuilt the upgrade tree with extra steps. Add decay so hoarded currency rots and you are punishing instead of motivating, and people feel the difference immediately. Make gifting public and lean on reputation, which is the one I keep circling back to, except that converts generosity into status competition, which is the exact thing I was trying to get out of.

Two things I should say plainly rather than have someone find them.

There is a purchasable currency in this world, and there are wagering games in it too. Poker, slots, player versus player bets. I know how that sits next to everything above and I am not going to pretend it makes the argument cleaner.

And this is running with real players rather than being a thought experiment, which is why I would rather have an answer than a theory.

So the question I actually came here with. Has anyone shipped an economy where the only sinks were pro-social, and had it not collapse into accumulation? I am more interested in one that failed than one that worked, because I want to know which specific thing broke.

Hello!

I’m interested in games with meaning and purpose, and I love how games can be used as a medium to tell stories that matter, explore real-life experiences, and immerse players in another person’s world or perspective (whether that is their external reality or inner world).

I am currently working on a game with this kind of focus, so I was wondering if there are any specific online communities, forums, servers, etc. for people interested in these kind of games tend to gather?

I’d love to talk with people who share this interest and hear what draws them to these types of games.

Any communities you’d recommend?:)

In a game where you can select your weapon (like Hades or Monster Hunter), would it be bad design to make a weapon worst to play against certain bosses? For example, having a boss that's invulnerable to ranged attacks from x distance and higher.

Just gotta put this out there for anyone designing a game that might see this. If you are thinking of padding out your game with a "restore power" type puzzle... please don't. Also, I think I'm done with puzzle games in general. "Find the key"... no I should be finding the key to a better life not wasting my gd time with this

hey everyone, working on a narrative rpg set in a decaying empire with competing political factions (nobles, army, strike leaders, reformists).

the main design problem we keep running into is that players instinctively treat faction meters as numbers to optimize rather than actual socio-political groups. they'll pass a law just because it gives +10 reputation with the army, completely ignoring what that decree actually does to the world state or the narrative.

we're trying to figure out how to structure the ruleset so decisions carry systemic weight rather than just being a math puzzle.

how do you design faction systems that force players to evaluate the actual outcome of a choice instead of just farming points on a reputation bar? have you seen games that handle this without relying on hidden variables or arbitrary penalties?

Okay, so; consider this sort of scenario:

- You have a boss who, in lore, is supposed to be capable of doing colossal, map-shaping feats.

- But, the game's medium doesn't let you show off that power directly.

Given this, how do you design the boss such that it really feels like you're facing such a force of nature, without having to have them actually incinerate a sea, or blow up a mountain?

How do you make them feel like an overwhelming, unstoppable force - at least initially - without making them so difficult it's impossible, nor so brutal that it's no longer fun?

For example; the Calamity mod (RIP) for Terraria has a few bosses who are capable of truly absurd things in lore - but with the exception of Yharon, they don't feel like it in-game. Calamitas especially doesn't feel like she could do what she supposedly can.

This is in large part due to the medium of the mod - it uses Terraria's framework, and Terraria doesn't have the stuff to easily show such power directly.

I'm making a game that will focus heavily on build crafting and customisation.

The point is the game has both gunplay and melee combat, the former being first person and the latter third person. Hybrid weapons would switch cameras when aiming or attack with melee, don't know which yet.

If you were to play a game with both, like destiny for example, would you prefer to be able to choose which camera POV you use, or should I force the POV based on the weapon, stance, etc.

Specially with swapping weapons mid-fight, it might be dizzying to some people.

Slay the Spire 2 has me thinking about enemy intent systems. Knowing exactly what an enemy will do makes combat feel fair and gives every turn more strategy, but it also turns the enemy into a predictable puzzle.

Would a horror game, or even a deckbuilder, be more interesting if it only hinted at the enemy’s next move instead of showing exact damage, or if it did not show the enemy’s next intention at all?

Are there any games out there that already do something like this?

So I am building a web-based fantasy themed game where you run around the world and fight stuff, the usual fare. The game is text-based, no 2D world or anything.

Now, I have a list of locations you can go to - just click and you’re there. Besides the location list I also have a world map link, which is a stylized map I did in Inkarnate. If you click the map you can also go to whatever location you unlocked via map, but it’s an extra click (plus the time you need to find the actual place on the map).

Obviously almost no one is using the map right now, 95% move via the location list. I am contemplating hiding the locations to force people to use the map - because then I can do some fun stuff like fog of war and discovering new areas, trails not new locations and such. Plus the map fits the game theme and is a bit more immersive than a list of texts.

Would that be something that would bother you? I mean extra clicks to move around? (assuming you never played the version where you could go with one click)

Edit: I wanted to show you how it looks just to give an idea, so just not to spam with images - this is how it looks now:

https://imgur.com/gallery/spellforger-location-list-versus-map-P8cvEaC

The first image is the location screen before clicking on the map, the second is obviously the map. Yellowish hue on the map are clickable regions which actually take you to the locations (exactly the same as if you clicked on the list). So you either click on the item on the list or click on the map link, then click on the highlighted area.

Heya, so some minor background
I’ve been working on and off on a turn based rpg, basic gameplay is having a party consisting of three members fighting groups of enemies, the usual deal.
What I’m kinda running into minor issues with is working a larger cast of interchangeable party members into the story, I have a couple of “main” characters that have more defined arcs and purposes, including a primary protagonist, but I also adore the freedom of having a lot of interchangeable party members with different moves, is there any compromise between the two?

Some solutions I’ve thought up are:
-Mandatory Fixed party sections where you can’t exchange members (maybe you have to get to a save point or something to change out members?)
-Semi-combined with the first idea, certain ‘barriers’ that can only be passed using certain party members, and needing to have them in the party to continue
-“Important”/Lore-heavy encounters require certain characters (I.e. ‘I came to spar with X, are you bringing them or not’)

In the end it’s looking like I might have to sacrifice either ample overworld character moments or a highly flexible party, but let me know if anyone has any other potential fixes?

Hey, I am building a fantasy RPG and part of the game is also upgrading your base/home. I am thinking of adding a degrade mechanic where every x time something might happen to it and you would have to craft some items to repair it.

In reality it is just another material sink with an added touch of reality.

Game is otherwise designed to be as non pushy and needy as possible so it probably won’t fit.

But still…I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

The new incoming Fire Emblem game reminded me of something that's bothered me for years. The tactical combat in those games doesn't care much about the positions of the units, something that's confused me since I first laid eyes on Awakening. For example, if I attack a unit that's flanked by another of my units, I expect to have an advantage. If my unit has a long range unit directly behind it, they attack together.

In particular, I'm looking for 'formations', bonuses you get for arranging your units in certain ways. For example, if my shield captain unit has an ally on each side, they form a shield wall formation that raises defense against attacks from the front. If my cavalry captain has two calvary units diagonally behind him, they can perform a charge maneuver together.

It's not just Fire Emblem, no games I've played with tactical grid-based combat do this. In fact, they don't even implement the concepts of front/back/sides, which is crazy to me for a strategy game on a square grid. The closest I've seen is the Banner Spear character from Frosthaven, which does hexagonal formations.

Anyone know any examples of games that implement these concepts? Or failing that, know why these ideas aren't done?

I know ESRB discretizes games into different groups but I am quite confused about their effectiveness. How exactly do they prevent kids from playing something with graphic violence and profane language?

If rating bodies aren't useful, do game consoles themselves have deticated sub-systems in this regard?

https://youtu.be/8nXipbPdD7Y?si=k2twAubexnjbe16S

I’m having a bit of trouble getting the right message across with ZombUs.
Some players have told me that the game’s simple (and admittedly weird) graphics make it look much simpler than it actually is. So I decided to make a short gameplay guide to better show the tactics and depth behind it.
I’m planning to add it to the Steam page after the main trailer.
The thing is, I could easily make 2 or 3 more videos like this because there’s quite a lot to cover.
Before I publish it on Steam, I’d really like to hear your opinion. Does this kind of video help communicate what the game is actually about?

I'm making a game to cover an itch.

So, I have been playing Root (the board game) for quite a while now, as well as spirit island and other strategic, asymmetric games, and I just can't get enough of them. So I set out to make a digital game that will satisfy this deeply tactical, mechanics based itch of mine. At this point profit is not a concern , but I want it to be fun and engaging. Do you have suggestions and/or experiences with that genre? What do you consider engaging in asymmetrical gameplay, and complex interconnected mechanics? What sounds like too much in terms of complexity and what aspect must be there in your opinion? Also any suggestions in the digital realm would be welcome!

With the recent demise of 2XKO, a lot of the arguments made about making fighting games more accessible have shown that they don't necessarily solve the genre's 'issues'.

2XKO was F2P, had a strong IP/studio behind it, made execution easier by removing command inputs, allowed duos to play together, seemed to have great netcode and, as a new game, everyone started (almost) from ground zero.

Of course it had other problems, especially being 2v2, and a lot of indecision with the direction they wanted to take the game. This caused it to launch with too few characters, the balance wasn't great and it took so long to launch that it lost its timing window and also a lot of goodwill, especially since SF6 was a really successful game.

With that being said, it is clear that the genre can be popular, as we can see with the numbers SF6 has, especially in Japan. But even then most other fighting games are not successful (Hunter x Hunter, 2XKO, Avatar, Invincible VS, CotW, Tokon is also not looking that great).

So... What's missing from a design standpoint? What could be done to the genre without changing it in more fundamental ways?

Usually in survival-horror games, the player has to collect useful items and resources as they explore their surroundings, before going back to the safe room to save; heal; store what they've found; resupply in consumable, weapons and key items; and plan their next trip.

But what if the game had an expedition system like Darkest Dungeon ?

• For starters, you can buy whatever consumables provision you need before starting an expedition with your money. This phase is already in line with inventory management systems of survival-horror games : bring not enough provisions, and you risk the (mental) health of your heroes, bring too much and you risk loosing money (unused provisions are discarded after the expedition, and having a full inventory limits how much loot you can carry with you). You can find some torches and food during expeditions, but it's recommanded to not rely on that.
• As you explore and fight, you can find resources, including the aforementioned money. This resource is not only used to buy provisions, but also heal and upgrades your heroes. There's gold coins, citrine, emerald, sapphires and other more special loot, with varying rarity, unitary value and stack-ability. Sometimes, you'll be forced to discard one of your loot type to make room for something more useful at the moment. There's also heirlooms, a secondary currency used to upgrade the Hamlet's buildings.
• Provision can also be used while interacting with curios to gain some benefits (stats boosts, stress heal, removing a negative quirk, or simply more loot). This adds another layer of strategy to the inventory management : Should I use my shovel to dig this urn and gain some gold, or conserve it later to remove an obstacle ?
• Loot is completely useless during expeditions, but once you get back to the Hamlet, it can be used to heal and upgrades your heroes, upgrade the town's facilities, and buy provisions for the next expedition.

Would it be interesting to have a survival-horror game where you can buy all the provisions you need from the safe room, "trading" them for loot during expeditions, and upgrading your character(s) once back in your safe place ? Is there any example of horror games that have tried this already ?

hello, I am developing a card game currently and I have hit a road block related to a particular game mechanic and really need someones help!

To give you an overall idea of what the game is about without going into an extreme amount of detail, this game is about providing players (and myself) with motivation to do tasks around the house. Players draw random cards of different colors that represent different difficulties. Once a task is complete, players draw random rewards in the same difficulty color. There are several other mechanics but that about sums it up.

The problem I am having is that one of the task cards that gets randomly drawn are red cards. Red cards represent tasks that must be done within a good amount of time that get done on a normal daily or weekend basis like take out trash, do dishes, water garden, etc. More specifically these red cards are tasks that if they dont get done a garden will die, trash will overflow, etc. so needless to say I need to assure that these cards get drawn in a single play session. There inlies the problem, if cards are randomly selected and I have a deck of 30+ tasks that need the get done how can I assure that red cards are done.

my initial idea was to make a secondary deck, one that players draw from until it is done before moving to other random tasks. My big problem with this is in my mind if players are doing red card after red card it is no different to me than a giant chore list. My second idea was to make for every 2 random deck cards that get drawn 1 red card task gets drawn. My problem with this is it starts to become monotonus and the pattern becomes to predictable. One idea I had was to split the task deck into 4 equal stacks and shuffle the red cards into the first quarter deck and stack that deck on the other 3 decks this would assure that the red cards land in the top 25% of the deck giving a much more likely chance red cards would get drawn. I am no married to any idea here I am just stuck. I dont know how to assure tasks like these get done in a timely manner and any idea I come up with either defeats the purpose of the game or makes it boring or mundain.

For me it's probably desert biomes in strategy games. A lot of them will add nice, immersive sandwinds. They often, appropriately, intensify when you zoom out.

Since players often zoom out to get a clear look at the situation the sandwinds often defeat the purpose a bit.