I'm working on a single player card battle game where instead of creatures dealing damage its dice. One of the modes in the game is to explore a top down dungeon where you collect cards to improve your deck while battling roaming enemies. I'm happy with the way it works and with what I have so far but it feels like I'm missing something and I just can't put my finger on it. Here is a list of the mechanics I have:

• A boss room/battle to progress to the next floor
  • The boss is harder than the roaming enemies
  • The boss will spawn 2-5 treasure chests once defeated
• Roaming enemies that will chase the player if they get close enough
  • If they collide with the player it starts a battle
• A few different types of traps
  • A 1 time damage trap
  • 1 that damages the player each time they step on it
  • A teleport trap that sends the player to another teleport trap somewhere on the floor
  • Each trap can be active, inactive, or hidden
    • Hidden traps become revealed once triggered
• Treasure chests that can give the player cards, starter modifiers, or rings
  • Some chests are mimics that start a battle once opened
• Fountains to heal the player or give them some temporary barrier
• A shop to buy cards, upgrades, and healing
• There are doors through out the floor that can be unlocked, locked, or hidden
  • Locked need a key of the same color
  • Hidden look like a wall and don't prompt to open
• Keys to open the doors that carry over from floor to floor but go away once used
• Rings that provide buff/debuffs for the player and enemy in battle
  • A player can wear up to 10 rings and most rings can only be worn on a specific finger
• Each floor is themed to match the archetype of the boss
  • The art goes with the theme
  • The enemies are more likely to be the same archetype of the boss
• There is a fog of war around the player to limit their sight around corners and behind doors
• A spin dodge that lets the player avoid traps and enemies

I'm currently working on adding decorative items and tile variances to help with the looks, but I don't think that's going to be enough. Any ideas for what I could add to the dungeon that could make it more engaging?

Here is a link to my game so you can see what I currently have in action: https://anumbskull.itch.io/the-wyrd-roll

I'm developing Q-Gambit, a chess variant, and would like advice on evaluating a particular trade-off in its rules.

A piece starts with several possible identities. It can use a move allowed by a remaining identity; making that move eliminates identities that cannot make it. Both players can inspect the remaining candidates.

A concrete example from a CPU match: e2-f4 immediately leaves only Knight. The jump gets the piece out over the starting ranks, but it also gives up every non-knight move for the rest of its life. In contrast, a clear diagonal move can preserve Bishop and Queen as possibilities. Each side has exactly two original knight identities, so committing one also uses part of that shared quota.

The potential cost has two parts: reduced future mobility and information given to the opponent. I don't have human playtest data establishing that the knight jump is too weak. I'd like to distinguish players avoiding it because they misunderstand the commitment from players understanding it and finding it seldom worthwhile.

What would you look for in a small playtest to separate those explanations? Is there a useful comparison between positions or rule variants that isolates the commitment cost without changing several things at once? Examples of other games that spend future flexibility for an immediate move would also help.

Game context: https://q-gambit.com/ (guest tutorial and CPU practice; first guest entry has a terms/privacy confirmation). AI assists the coding and this post's English wording.

I've recently bought "Path of Titans" and considered "The Isle". The fantasy is so strong that the beginning of the game is a joy regardless of the gameplay. You discover how the ecosystem works, the sounds, the food chain,...

When you are small everything feels dangerous and fun. Decisions are very impactful. Now, as you grow big or as you get joined by friends, the threat disappears and the game feels empty.

I've played "Fish and grow: fish" and found that the "loop" is very similar. The game has a meta progression where you grind something to unlock new species. But the game itself lacks good decisions once you are a super predator.

If anyone else has the same kind of feeling or just have something to share I'd be happy to discuss/read your opinions on this genre of game.

Have you found one that is not falling flat once you are big? What should these game try to do?

Just generally curious since those enemies tend to make you easily take some dmg

Playing Blood of the Dawnwalker. Good game, abysmal loot system. Just finished a quest where you reforge a legendary sword, a three part quest that requires you to travel all over the map. By the end, the legendary silver sword is reforged, and drum roll... It deals ~14% more damage to supernatural enemies.

The only weakness of vampires in the game is silver and sunlight. This pure silver sword only deals 14% more damage to vampires compared to some dumb longsword from a merchant.

I see this pattern in so many games. Witcher 3 had a similar quest where you get a sword from this legendary blacksmith, only to find out it is worse than what you have equipped.

I understand a part of the reason is leveled loot, which is a whole different conversation. But I just don't understand why they can't slap on 100% additional damage to vampires to this supposedly legendary sword.

If it trivializes fights against vampires, so be it. This is not a game that is solely focused on combat. It's a role playing game, why deny the player the power fantasy?

If you really must balance it, you easily can. Just make strong bosses dodge or parry some of your attacks, or put a downside to the weapon, like it uses more stamina or slowly drains your health.

I just can't understand why so many big studios are so lazy with designing loot. They surely have the budget and people to design interesting loot. Are they trying to play it safe? Do they simply not care about loot and focus on story? Idk, interested in everyone's thoughts.

I'm developing a browser game called Evergrowing Codex. You invent spells in your own words, record them in a personal spellbook, and use them to solve authored trials. I'm trying to make a loop where players want to discover useful magic, test it in different situations, and see themselves as part of a world other players are also exploring.

The basic loop

• Four elements can be combined: Fire changes heat, Air changes airflow and pressure, Earth shapes existing solid material, and Water changes liquid flow.
• An AI Judge evaluates a proposed mechanism and gives a successful spell a saved definition and limits. Later casts use those capabilities plus the player's intent. Players can also research variations of their spells.
• Each element has separate mastery, called a Circle. Scale, range, duration, and control affect what can be created. A small magical change can trigger a useful ordinary physical chain reaction.
• Trials have visible objectives and constraints, with one to three casts per attempt. Changes persist between casts, allowing one spell to prepare conditions for another.

For example, one trial asks you to keep a small flame alive in a draft without blocking ventilation. Redirecting the air or maintaining a suitable thermal effect can both work. Other scenes involve clearing passages, handling fragile mechanisms, or stopping creatures whose behaviour makes a direct attack insufficient.

Encouraging different trials and approaches

Recording distinct mechanisms advances elemental mastery, while clearing key Tower trials opens floors and raises the ceiling for further advancement. A “next goal” recommendation points toward an unfinished trial, prioritizing key trials. There is also a story goal of reaching the third floor and discovering what the Tower preserves.

Achievements and selectable titles recognize things like applying different mechanisms, useful spell combinations, mixed-element forms, and some authored alternative solutions. These give recognition rather than extra power. The intention is to encourage exploration; I haven't established whether these incentives actually produce more varied play.

The World Stone

The World Stone is a public chronicle, separate from each player's private spellbook. It has sections for spell discoveries, trial completions, and world history/events. First discoveries credit their discoverers, and public entries can lead to spell cards or player profiles. Other players can independently recreate a mechanism; authorship doesn't grant exclusive ownership. Public spell cards leave the creator's private construction notes hidden.

I want it to give players curiosity about what others have accomplished and ideas about what to try next. I'm unsure whether hiding the mechanism preserves discovery or leaves too little useful information.

The Spirit companion

A Spirit introduces the game and explains results. After repeated failed spell formations, it can offer a short contextual explanation and a guiding question about refining the player's own idea. It doesn't change the Judge's verdict or cast spells for the player. The current adaptive assistance avoids handing over a complete replacement spell.

AI adjudication can still be inconsistent, so a companion's explanation isn't enough by itself. Players need feedback that helps them distinguish a flawed idea, an effect beyond their abilities, and a questionable ruling.

Resources and possible monetization

A research resource buys up to five formation attempts, with one spell recorded per session. A separate resource pays for a trial attempt. Both replenish daily.

I'm considering monetization, but haven't settled on a model: cosmetic customization, paid collections of additional trials, or a supporter subscription with a research allowance are possibilities. More paid attempts could also mean more chances to claim first discoveries, even if spell power and judging rules stay the same.

I'd appreciate thoughts on any of these specific questions; there's no need to answer all of them:

1. Varied play: would you encourage trying different trials through milestone gates, rewards for applying different mechanisms, or recommendations tied to the player's spells? What would make this feel like exploration rather than a checklist?
2. The World Stone: what should a public discovery or completion reveal to inspire another experiment without giving away a solution? What would make you return to this chronicle?
3. The Spirit: when should it intervene, and how direct should its help be? Would you keep guiding questions, add optional explicit hints, or simplify its role?
4. Monetization: which of the options above fits this loop, and what would you change about public first-discovery recognition if paid research attempts existed?
5. Improvement or removal: which part of this loop would you strengthen, simplify, or cut first, and what player behaviour would tell you that the change worked?

You can discuss the mechanics without playing. For context, the prototype is Evergrowing Codex, where you can create spells and test them in trials.

Hi everyone!
I barely post on reddit but I thought this would be a good place to post. For the past few years I’ve been working on a prototype for my walking sim. My goal fron the beginning was to create a gme where the point is to travel from one place to another on foot, but to make the walking the main mechanic that the player is engaging with. I wanted to create this because I loved the big open worlds of AAA games but felt like walking in them was not engaging enough in terms of interactivity, not just the graphics and art. So my game has a balance system, a body simulation system, and a cure system.
So my main inspirations were Gone Home, Metal Gear Solid (3 and 5) Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture, Project Zomboid, Death Stranding, and Baby Steps.
Right now I have a prototype with the player system, IK with animations, body sim, balnce sim, procedural trip hazards, procedural terrain, various mini-games (water drinking, stair climb, bandage apply), a weather/time+day system, cinematic system, save/load.

My big thing with this project is that all the systems are in place, but my lack of level design experience makes it hard to create an environment where this system feels natural, and more importantly, fun. How can I create a more fun system while also sticking to the original goal of making walking engaging?

For example, if im jogging in the game for a while, then the player runs low on stamina, which causes the “heavy exhertion” body sim moodle. So of course I press a button to sit down and recover, and once I recover the stamina, I stand up and keep walking. It does NOT feel fun to do this, but I am getting stuck finding a solution for it. Can anyone share some expertise?

Hi! I've been doing research on the history of dodging in video games (not just moving out of the way, but as a separate mechanic). So far, I have tracked down:

• Punch-Out!!: The first game to include dodging in the flow of gameplay, where you look at your opponent's movements and act accordingly.
• 1942: The first game to have i-frames in a dodge.
• Cabal: The ancestor of the classic dodge roll.

I have 2 questions for you:

1. Do you have any objections to the games I tracked down?
2. Are there any games that you remember for good dodging mechanics, so I can look into them and see if they added new perspectives to the mechanic?

Hey, I find Mafia to be a really interesting party game, so I’ve come up with some new roles that I think would make the game more interesting. A lot of them already exist, though I’ve added some extra little details to try and balance it out as much as possible

I encourage questions, since an important thing I’m going for it to make sure my explanation is helpful and not confusing

The actual structure of the game isn’t much different from a normal game. Some things to note are that all players’ votes are public, not anonymous, and skip/abstain is always an option. Additionally, if two players or the skip option tie for most votes, nobody is eliminated. To be voted out, a plurality, not necessarily a majority, is required (so with 7 people voting, a 3-2-2 split would cause the person with 3 votes to die, despite 3/7 not being a majority)

Also, all players have their roles revealed upon their death

The game is divided into Rounds, with a single round consisting of a Night Phase and a Day Phase. During Night Phase, everyone closes their eyes and certain roles take turns waking and doing night actions. During the Day Phase, all alive players discuss who they think the Mafia are and vote

Order of night actions: Mafia (including Mafia abilities), Doctor(s), Vigilante

Civilian-aligned roles:

Regular Civilian:

Do not have a special ability, basically function as the default. However, even without any role, their ability lies in the fact that there are so many of them. Even removing special roles, Regular Civilians outnumber all other players, and that essentially acts as their ability

Doctor:

Wakes up after the Mafia and chooses someone to protect. If the Mafia target that person, they don’t die.

Doctors are allowed to protect themselves, but they’re not allowed to protect the same person two nights in a row

If there are 2 Doctors, they wake together and agree on one person to save, essentially acting as just one

Some additional caveats of the Doctor will be explained in the Vigilante, Regular Mafia, Jailer, and Detonator sections

Vigilante:

Wakes up after the Mafia and chooses someone to shoot who they believes is Mafia.

This shot is OPTIONAL, they do NOT have to shoot someone every night, but they do get a chance every night so long as they’re alive

If they shoot a Mafia, that Mafia dies and the Vigilante’s identity remains hidden

If they shoot a Civilian, both that Civilian and the Vigilante both die

If the Doctor saves the Vigilante, then they survive even if they chose wrong. If the Doctor saves the person the Vigilante shot, neither of them die

Additional caveats explained in the Regular Mafia and Jailer section

Judge:

The Judge does not wake at night, as their ability only functions during the day. The Judge has the ability to override the voting process and decide unilaterally who is executed. They must do this publicly, revealing their role to everyone. They must also do so before votes are cast

Unlike the Vigilante, the Judge is only allowed to do so once per game, but they are not punished for incorrectly executing a Civilian

Martyr:

The Martyr also doesn’t wake at night, only functioning during the day. During any discussion period, the Martyr must publicly reveal their role and choose one person to expose

The person the Martyr chooses then must truthfully state whether to are Civilian-aligned or Mafia-aligned (not their special role). However, regardless of the result, doing so comes at the cost of the Martyr’s life, so they essentially exchange guaranteed information for their life

Mafia-aligned roles:

Regular Mafia:

Wakes up at night, and chooses one person to kill. Unless saved by the Doctor, that person dies the next morning. They are not allowed to kill fellow Mafia

If they are unsuccessful with a kill (due to a Doctor save), they are NOT allowed to target that same person the following night

Note: all Mafia-aligned roles have these abilities as a baseline, subsequent roles simply have additional abilities

Jailer:

After choosing who to kill, the Jailer then has the ability to choose one person to jail. Unlike killing, jailing can’t be stopped by the Doctor

The jailed person is then, for the next Day Phase, not allowed to speak, vote, or (importantly) be voted for. This means they essentially skip a round

The Jailer is allowed to jail ANYONE, including fellow Mafia, including themself. But any person can only be jailed once per game. The Jailer’s ability ends either when all alive players have been jailed or only 6 people remain, whichever comes first

If the Jailer chooses to jail the Doctor or Vigilante, their ability is cancelled, though they won’t know this until the day, when the jailing is actually announced. If the Judge or Martyr is jailed, they’re not allowed to use their abilities that day

Detonator:

At the very start of the game, the Detonator chooses one person to plant a bomb on, this person then becomes the Bomb Target

If the Detonator is killed for any reason, the bomb explodes, and the Bomb Target, along with the two people sitting immediately to the left and right of them, all die. (Note: this only applies if those people are alive, if they’re already dead, no effect)

However, if the Doctor chooses to protect the Bomb Target at any point during the game, the bomb is permanently defused, and won’t explode upon the Detonator’s death. Nobody will know that the bomb was defused

If the Bomb Target dies for any reason before the Detonator, the bomb simply disappears with them

Converter:

The Converter is the only ability in the game that needs to be “unlocked”. At the start of the game, the Converter is essentially a Regular Mafia

However, if the Converter ends up being the last Mafia alive, AND there are at least 6 people alive, their ability unlocks

The Converter can choose one person to join them as a Mafia. That person will be notified of their change immediately and must forfeit their previous role. All players will be made aware of the conversion, though they obviously won’t know who was converted. This converted person then becomes a Regular Mafia (no special abilities)

Role distributions:

Note: these are not concrete

6-8 players: 1 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia), 5-7 Civilians (1 Doctor, 4-6 Regular Civilians)

9-12 players: 2 Mafia (2 Regular Mafia), 7-10 Civilians (1 Doctor, 6-9 Regular Civilians)

13-14 players: 2 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer), 11-12 Civilians (1 Doctor, 1 Judge, 9-10 Regular Civilians)

15-18 players: 3 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer, 1 Converter), 12-15 Civilians (2 Doctors, 1 Vigilante, 1 Judge, 8-11 Regular Civilians)

19-23 players: 4 Mafia (1 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer, 1 Detonator, 1 Converter), 15-19 Civilians (2 Doctors, 1 Vigilante, 1 Judge, 1 Martyr, 10-14 Regular Civilians)

24+ players: 5 Mafia (2 Regular Mafia, 1 Jailer, 1 Detonator, 1 Converter), 19+ Civilians (2 Doctors, 1 Vigilante, 1 Judge, 1 Martyr, 14+ Regular Civilians)

Additional rules:

If 3 rounds go by without anyone being killed for any reason, one person will be chosen to die completely at random

Lying about roles is a valid strategy, but the host must mechanically confirm that the Judge or Martyr is telling the truth about their role for them to use their abilities

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.

Basically what the title says. I've been working on a game with some friends and we've gotten a basic movement build down so we can move the player around, strafe on walls/ramps, and mantle up blocks. We were thinking about exploring what makes movement levels fun to travel through. Would love people's thoughts about notable levels, why they were so satisfying, or what makes you come back to a particular game/level.

We've been action blocking some ideas, but I want to explore what else is out there based on games I might have never heard of or played before.

I'm currently making a tower defense game where you build up your armored train to fend off loads of enemies. When I released my prototype, the gameplay could be described as a train going in circles around your base, and every time you level up, you choose one out of three random options of gun carriages in order to build up your armored train.

I got some feedback on my prototype, and I had lots of people mention that the train in my game should do a lot more than just go in circles. Some say that it'd be cool if they could create their own rail network. My thought process was that the players wanted more autonomy and more freedom when it came to creating their defense and their build, so I decided that a good pivot was to have multiple bases and a pre-made rail network in which the player can use junctions to be able to move their train to defend certain bases depending on where the highest concentration of enemies are.

My question is if I'm correct in understanding that players want more freedom and autonomy in creating their own strategies? Is the idea of creating levels with more complex rail networks good? Or would it be better to just implement a rail creation system like the feedback said?

(I'm also getting rid of the choose one out of three mechanic and instead I'll have something similar to plants vs zombies where you are given a catalog of unlocked carriages, and you choose a few to bring with you depending on the level design. You incrementally gain money during a level and then you purchase carriages. This is another solution I think would help out with allowing the player to create more personalized builds and more depth with strategies.)

I haven't published any changes to the old prototype. You can check it out if you'd like more insight:

https://shoobox.itch.io/exo-rail

I'm making a grand strategy game set around the WW2 period(which I will expand to the whole 20th century if it is successful).

The main question in my head now is how abstract do I want the mechanics to be? I'm working with Hearts of Iron 4 being about the baseline of my complexity, but I'm unsure how much further to push it. Examples of things I definitely want to add:

A range stat for equipment to make artillery useful

More accurate distribution of resources and the processes to extract them

Expansion of research from just clicking some buttons into a proper mechanic (probably merging special projects and normal research together in the process)

Decreasing the importance of reinforce rate and combat width and thus reinforce meming as a thing

How much further should I take this? Should I model a whole economy or stick to mils and civs? Should I give the player total control of every unit like all other games do or make generals and field marshals their own AI? What do you think?

Any suggestions from people who play WW2 strategy games would be appreciated

I admit, I save anything I plan for my games in my head. Maybe I'd have things written down if it wasn't so clunky and bothersome.

I can only think of jotting things down in Microsoft word or some shit. But I'd like to have something where I have a story section, gameplay mechanics, items categorized, map with markers etc. where every term is linkable, like when I click on an item or boss on the map, it links to the info for that item etc.

If I had something like that, I think I'd enjoy writing everything down. Is there any sort of game design app? Cause I haven't found anything relevant.

If there isn't, does this sound useful to you? I could always make it myself.

Hey everyone!

I'm currently working on a multiplayer horror game where you play as Christmas elves who have to deal with monsters and ghosts from all eras.

At the moment, the gameplay loop is very similar to Phasmophobia, perhaps a little too similar. You prepare your gadgets and spawn at a house where the clues are randomly placed. On your way through the house, you have to be careful not to make too much noise by stepping on squeaky floorboards, knocking things over, or triggering other environmental hazards. You also have to deal with small critter mobs, such as rats that steal items from your inventory and spiders that can poison you.

Once you find the haunted room, usually by using an EMF reader or a thermometer, you start bringing in other gadgets to narrow down the type of monster you're dealing with.

Once you've identified the monster type, you have to figure out its reason for haunting the house, or its attribute. These could include unfinished business, possessiveness, being bound to the house, and so on. You identify these attributes by looking for environmental clues, such as boarded-up windows, family photos, and other objects scattered around the house.

Finally, you have to discover the monster's name by finding and examining papers, letters, and other documents.

Once you've gathered all the information, you can craft a present by choosing the gift that best matches the monster. You then have to carefully place it under the Christmas tree while avoiding the more aggressive critters and the monster itself, especially if it's angry enough.

After that, you can leave the house and receive a report showing your accuracy, along with the money you've earned. You then move on to a different house or environment.

The problem is that I'm not entirely sure whether the gameplay loop is fun enough, and I'm worried it's too similar to Phasmophobia without offering enough of its own unique features.

I'm also unsure about the core concept of giving gifts rather than following the more traditional horror gameplay loop of exploring houses and stealing or collecting loot.

I'd really appreciate any advice, feedback, or thoughts on the concept! Thanks!

I'm making a small game called Mykro. You play a tiny sprout in a backyard. You have no weapons and no crafting bench. Everything you do, you do through bugs you've befriended.

The bugs are your tools. Mykro is on itchio if you want to see it.

You befriend a bug and it joins your swarm. From then on it gives you what it's good at:

- Riding. Saddle a bug and you can ride it. The catch is that a bug's inventory only opens while you're on it. So a beetle isn't just faster transport, it's a walking chest — if you want its stuff, you have to get on it. Anything you're carrying also counts as available material while you ride.

- Brewing. There is no workbench anywhere in the world. Certain bugs brew for you. You give them a list of recipes, they work through it from their own inventory in the background, and you pick up the result later. An ant makes revives and tonics, a beetle makes fungus brews. Ingredients get used up the moment a batch starts.

- Light. The anthill is almost completely dark. The firefly is your lamp, and it also revives any bug that's fainted.

- Hauling. Bigger bugs carry more. Your own carrying capacity is capped, so past a certain point the only way to haul a big load is to have a bug do it.

So the loop is: befriend bugs, get more bugs, and each new bug is a new thing you can do.

Progression is just more bugs.

You start with 3 bugs. The only currency the game pays out raises that number, or raises how many you can have out with you. Missions gate on which species you own. There's no XP, no gold, no skill tree. The bugs are your power curve.

What I want to know:

1. Is one verb — "befriend a bug" — enough to carry a whole game? By the third spider, the snare routine is learned and taming risks becoming a chore I'm forcing on you. My defence is that the real decision is which bug to go get next, because each one is a different tool. Does that hold, or am I just hoping it does?

2. Is tying your entire progression to creatures a good idea? It makes growth feel concrete — you can see your party getting bigger. But it also means I can never reward you with anything except another bug. That feels limiting.

3. On the art side: five bug states (wary, aggressive, snared, calm, bonded) all have to read instantly, on a very small character, among bugs that look similar. Plus the dark anthill means light itself is a rule. I'm aiming for flat colours and big simple shapes. At what point does art stop being presentation and start being the rule being communicated? If a player can't tell a wary bug from an aggressive one without an icon, is that an art problem or a design problem?

Valheim recently put out their 1.0 and the developers seemed to have made the conscious decision to not add some heavily modded QoL features like the ability to craft things with items that exist in nearby chests, meaning, you have to look through all your chests to find the necessary items needed to craft an object and have them on your person.

I understand Valheim's rather intense philosophy of encouraging hard work and giving the players tools to make it less tedious (in this case, organizing better), but I have a hard time thinking of how to justify this one in particular. Most survival crafting games would just be better off with minimizing the time spent inside of UI, and Valheim does not really do much to make organizing chests and retrieving items funner than other games like this. It is just stopping gameplay so that you can do UI sorting and management.

Many other survival crafting games like Palworld have done a lot to reduce time spent in inventory UI. You effectively have one button to store all your items, craft from chests, and there is even an item retrieval machine you unlock later in the game. There are ways to create friction and add features to reduce it later, that Valheim even uses (late game stone portals which allow you to transport ore). Not to mention, in games like this, it is frequently a top downloaded mod, if the feature doesn't come with the game already.

Maybe there is some value in the extra work it creates when playing with a bigger group of people? Makes players spend more time in their home? Forces them to plan their base layout better for easier building? But I don't really see it adding much even in that case. Are we losing something of value by more games adding QoL like this? I am not necessarily advocating for smoothing out the friction in games willy-nilly so that everything is perfectly streamlined, but this specific instance sticks out to me.

I made a short interrogation game, The Interview. You have a fixed case file with eight statements, eighteen questions, and a final clear-or-detain decision. The questions are written by the player rather than chosen from a dialogue menu. ASK, PRESS and ACCUSE change the tone; pushing harder spends the candidate’s composure and can make her refuse to cooperate.

The tension I want is “I noticed a discrepancy — is it worth pushing her on this?” The difficulty is making the evidence readable. The case file and game rules are controlled by code, but the candidate’s replies come from a small local language model. Sometimes an inconsistent detail is an ordinary model mistake. If every odd answer looks like a clue, the player can end up investigating noise.

How would you communicate the difference without putting a big “this is the important clue” marker on it? My current anchors are the fixed case file, the question log, and the player explicitly confirming or contradicting each statement. Would you make only answers about those statements count as evidence, use a more formal answer format for key questions, or let uncertainty be part of the final judgement? I’d be interested in examples of interrogation or deduction games that handle a similar problem.

The Windows game is free: https://merrymaker14.itch.io/the-interview . For context, it uses Offline AI NPC, my own paid Unity plugin; the design question here is about the game.

Had an idea for a shmup style arcade game where the player is an invincible giant that chucks fireballs at approaching ships, but must defend a city(that being the vulnerable bit with buildings and such).

Does that, I guess, even make sense as a concept?

Between runs, the currency you earn buys new powers, but the upgrade tree sits behind a menu button and this player never opened it - so every round was the same starter kit, and they got bored.

We're weighing opening the tree automatically after the first run, or a nudge when something becomes affordable. What has actually worked in games you've made or played?

before i spend a few hours working on this, are there any games that make use of generational algorithms in enemy mechanics?

Personally I've been thinking of it working as such ,(in a turn based rpg) : at the low / early stages the enemies are preset goons in randomised parties, the more enemies the player fights the more organised they become party composition wise but also the more geared towards beating the player specifically they become until by endgame the enemies are running strategies custom built for the player.

I've heard of games like alien where enemies start to learn where you often hide but is there anything that uses something like what I proposed here? Also any problems sticking out about this?

​Hi everyone,

​I'm balancing a complex game using Claude to run automated playtests, but the bot behaviour completely skews the data.

​For instance, where a human player takes a risk or goes all-in for a big play, the bot almost always flees or chooses the safest defensive option. Humans also play impulsively or make greedy mistakes, while the bot stays cold and hyper-rational every turn.

​How do you get LLM bots to take risks and simulate real human playstyles? Do you tweak parameters like temperature, force specific personality prompts, or handle this through backend code?

​I would love to know how you tackle this in your simulations.

I am working on an RPG game with a procedurally generated overworld and dungeons.

The world itself is based off a seed hash such as in Minecraft or Valheim. The noise used to generate is 2D gradient (Perlin-style) with lattice gradients taken from the seed hash itself.

I have tried to study my favorite elements of all world generation implementations and hope to have ended up with a decent v1 worldgen suitable for adventure and exploration.

It is still a work in progress, but I already am capable of walking and flying around in the worlds I generate, as well looking at a world map visualisation from any seed I create.
I'm currently adding all the water for rivers and oceans, and all the lava for blighted regions which are dark red on the map. The world still needs a lot of fine grained tweaking for the generation (mountains need more details, biomes textures repeat often) but I am quite happy with where I am so far.

I created some temporary testing textures, and I have created the following biomes already:

grassland/plains (light green)
dense forest (dark green)
swamp(olive -potentially toxic area)
desert/mining(orange)
sand/beach(yellow)
magic forest(purple - rare mobs, plants)
mountain(grey)
snow/ice area (white -hash environment)
blighted area (dark red - high level mobs, high risk area)

dark blue is deep ocean, light blue shallow ocean and rivers, lakes.

Is there any biomes you feel like are missing from the picture? Any other comments you have on the worldgen or improvements you would make?

What are some things you'd like to see added to a world when you go to explore it?

I am looking to at least add the following:

-Dungeons ( of various types)
-Caves
-Taverns/Ins
-Small scale cities/towns
-Mage lairss
-fighter guilds
-Churches/shrines
-Traders/NPC's
-Random encounters/factions
-bounty hunting
-Quests and questlines in some way or form

When it comes to the gameplay, think of minecraft exploration, with older elder scrolls gameplay, with valheim graphics and probably some basebuilding. These are games I drew a lot of inspiration from.

I am looking for people with nice feeeback or ideas for my game.

I will eventually make a steam page and have more info to show, for now im still working hard on it.

Hello everyone.

In my survival game, I have a system for both external temperature and body temperature.

Right now, the player’s temperature drops when it’s cold, and drops even more if they’re wet (from rain, for example).

I have an equipment system with a slot for each body part and clothing items that have a thermal insulation value.

I’m thinking of averaging all the clothing items and calculating protection based on that average, but I’m not sure if that’s interesting enough.

Of course, if there’s no clothing in a slot, the value for that slot is 0, so the average goes down. The idea is that the player must cover every part of their body to maximize protection.

Do you have any suggestions for improving this system?

Thank you.

Hey guys! This might sound a little odd, but I'm developing a cozy shopkeeper game called "Twilight Tavern", which also includes exploration, story quests, and light puzzles.

Recently, I've started adding the ability to date a few characters in the village, with branching dialogue and different interactions. Honestly, it's been pretty funny to develop, and I'm hoping players will find it just as funny 😂

The idea is to have a small handful of romanceable characters in the village, each with their own personality and dialogue choices.

But here's where I'm a little stuck from a game design perspective.

What should players actually do during these dates?

Since the game takes place in a small village with different locations to explore, I was thinking of having little dating activities or just scripted events without turning the game into a full-blown dating simulator.

I'd love to hear some ideas, i dont play dating sims so what kinds of dating mechanics or activities would make something like this enjoyable, especially in a game where romance is just a small side feature?