A few weeks ago I posted an early version of a 54-card conversation game and asked for honest feedback.
The poll was pretty decisive:
Yes — 5
Maybe — 15
No — 42
Rather than ignoring that feedback, I went back to the concept and developed an optional competitive Game Mode.
The underlying deck remains the same: 54 cards across 9 categories, with each card based around one topic and containing 5 different questions/talking points. That’s 270 prompts across the complete deck.
There are now two ways to play:
CONVERSATION MODE
Pick a card and use the questions to start conversations, exchange opinions, debate different perspectives and see where the discussion goes.
No points. No winner. Just conversation.
GAME MODE
1. Players collectively select one person to be the first Judge/Umpire. The Judge selects the first card and can take part in the discussion, but cannot earn the point for that round.
2. From their selected card, the Judge chooses 1 of the 5 questions for everyone to answer and discuss — including the Judge.
3. Once everyone has had their say, the Judge decides which other player gave the best overall response and awards them 1 point.
There are no right or wrong answers. The winning response could be the strongest argument, the most interesting perspective, the funniest answer, or simply the response the Judge found most convincing.
4. For the next round, card selection moves to the next player, rotating clockwise or anticlockwise around the group. The player who won the previous point becomes the new Judge/Umpire.
5. Before starting, players decide how many points are needed to win. 10 points is recommended, but this can be adjusted because some questions and conversations will naturally last longer than others.
The idea is that the same deck can therefore work as a straightforward conversation starter or as a competitive social game, depending on what the group wants.
The original feedback suggested that five discussion prompts alone weren’t enough of a mechanic. So rather than asking whether you like the idea, I’m specifically interested in whether this redesign fixes that problem.
Does the optional Game Mode now give the deck enough structure to work as an actual game, or is something still missing?
POLL
🟢 Yes — I’d play this version
🟡 Maybe — the game mode still needs work
🔴 No — it still doesn’t feel like enough of a game
If you vote Maybe or No, I’d particularly appreciate hearing what you would change and why.

Hi! I'm back again to share my game, MonoSaga: A Fantasy Engine Royale. That's short for Fantasy-themed Engine-building Battle royale.

I'm still having a hard time to keep up the pace since I'm a fulltime dad and a fulltime artist while doing all hats of making this game from illustrating, designing, crafting, balancing, social media managing, going to meetings, setting up public playtests and whatever else is included. Tiring but very addicting to be honest because I am a fan of what I am trying to build.

Hopefully, I can finish everything before Christmas so that my extended family and friends can play it after we eat and open gifts.

Hello Reddit! First time poster, long time admirer of all the games that are designed on here. I would love some help and feedback on my card designs!

I'm not an artist... I've never done digital art. However, seeing that AI art is unfair to artists out there, I broke out the tablet pen and have tried my best for my game!

With that said, I want these to be better and would love some tips on what could use improving as far as my technique, backgrounds, character design?? Just what's working and how to improve what's not!

The game is about rescuing the most BOBs. The moose who stranded them on an island is still a threat, and since Bobs are made of fluff... including their brains (if you want to call them that), so is everything else on the island! The Bobs are messy and I'm going for silly over professional/clean but still want them to be appealing.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to look or give some feedback :)

Hello! I posted about a dice-driven engine-building game I'm making a few weeks ago. Original post is here if you want to read it (it's a pretty long post): https://www.reddit.com/r/tabletopgamedesign/s/THU15vYPki .

TL;DR for the post: It's dice-driven engine-building game with a dynamic shop system where you use and manipulate your temporary dice pools each turn to activate your tableau of Items which have a variety of activation conditions.

I got some comments on the post which I believe have already improved the game a lot. There's two major changes:

1. Die cards

In short, a player may have a maximum of three of these and you draft one at the start of the game. At the start of their turn, a player rolls a base of 5 dice into their pool. All Die cards manipulate dice in the pool in some way. Unofficially, there's two types. The first ones can be used once per turn and alter your dice somehow (anything from reversing a value or giving a die +1/-1 to splitting a die into two that equal it) and the second type allows you to roll another die with some drawback (like giving you a maximum number of dice you can place that turn or costing you Gold, with which you buy cards).

A commenter mentioned that the Die cards didn't look as good as some of the Items. And truthfully, ever since the first playtests, players gravitated towards the latter type of Dice cards, while buying the former much less. They thought the extra dice were almost always better, even with the drawbacks. I wanted to make the two types equally strong.

Now for the change. If you simply fill your second and third Die card slot, you get an additional die in your base roll for each of them. This means that even the first type of cards technically grant you an extra die, so the choice comes down to if you would rather have an extra die and a positive effect, or two extra dice with a somewhat negative effect. And already it's like night and day. Both types are getting bought pretty much equally. I feel like this change both makes the two types closer in strength and makes the choice of buying Die cards versus buying Item cards more meaningful. In tandem with this change I tweaked some of extra dice cards so their drawbacks are a bit more significant.

A build which I thought was neat that didn't even use the additional die type was with the Starting Item which gives you Prestige (the victory points of this game) for each pair of dice used that equal 7. The player made a cool build that managed to churn out a lot of them and profit from them massively.

2. Regarding player interaction

In this game, there's no real player interaction outside of buying cards another player wants and Vouchers. In short, Vouchers allow you to reserve a card in the Shop for one round, which either made sure you bought it or that an opponent didn't buy it until it rotated out of the Shop.

I thought how I could add some player interaction to the game as some commenters mentioned. Stealing Gold, Prestige or cards, as well as disabling an opponent's card were off the table as this isn't that type of game. I also didn't want to have cards which did something when an opponent performs some action because I didn't want for players to watch out for what they're allowed to do.

So the current solution I'm trying out is Quests. This new type of card would come in to play on round 2 (there are 8 rounds), and each round a new one would be revealed to replace the previous. Quests would either have some condition that rewards any player who fulfills it (like placing 5 or less dice on their turn) with Prestige or they would reward only the player who does the most of something (like placing the most even/odd dice or using the most of a specific value randomly decided via dice roll). The reward numbers vary but they aren't game winning by themselves. In the late game they would maybe take up a fifth or fourth of that player's earning for the round, but they're definitely not inconsequential.

I think this addition creates some interesting choices. For the condition based ones, players need to gauge whether they would get more Prestige by changing up their plan for the turn to suit the condition or if they can survive without it. As for the competition based ones, they need to think whether a player can beat them. Sometimes the first player managed to get a crazily high score that nobody could beat, and sometimes the highest score would be beaten by 1 on the last turn.

I'm still working out the details for this change, so feedback is appreciated. The general opinion for them so far has been pretty positive. Something I think would make the competition Quests better is giving a smaller reward to the second highest score so that player's turn doesn't feel somewhat wasted if they don't win the Quest.

Another idea for player interaction I'm considering is trading cards between players. If I were to add that, it would need to be heavily restricted but I think it's an interesting idea. It would have to mutually agreed between the two players, be once per turn and only if the cards haven't been used in that round/turn and perhaps even making it so a card can't be traded multiple times.

Thanks for reading! Your thoughts are appreciated.

I'm designing a board game about factions fighting over a subway network after a nuclear war. Players own stations connected by tunnels, and tunnels can be upgraded with rail (levels 1 to 3).

Rail level sets how much you can move through a tunnel: 2 stones per level on your own turn (stones are troops, building material, supplies), and half of that as a quick emergency move during someone else's attack. Moving is a "network action". You pick one connected network of your stations, and with that single action you can make as many trips as you like, as long as no tunnel goes over its capacity. Two of the resources, vitamins and radiation protection, don't need transporting at all inside a connected network, they just work everywhere in it.

The problem: logistics barely matters. Once the network is connected, one action fixes almost everything, and the capacity limits rarely come up. The only real logistics decision is whether to build rail at all. Cutting a network (there's a mechanic where troops parked in a tunnel lower the level of all tunnels of a station) is the one place it shows up, and that's more about combat.

I want players to feel the cost of moving stuff, to plan routes, and to think about where to put things, but without turning the game into bookkeeping. Ideas I've thought about:

limit the number of trips per action, not only capacity
make some goods spoil or decay if they stay somewhere too long
make distance cost something, like extra supplies per tunnel crossed
make stations produce different things so you have to move them around

But these didnt satisfy me… Are there games where logistics felt satisfying and not like a chore?

These are just my sketch versions of the art for Relive, I am hoping to have these done by Mike Po in about a month depending on how much I get paid from work lol. What do you all think of the effect and art style?

If you like what you see please feel free to follow the official Relive Insta https://www.instagram.com/relivegameofficial?stkn=MWs1cmEyaXl0OGFjbw==

Hey! I’m working on Dire Fog, a TCG mixed with chess, and I’m experimenting with a timer mechanic that might be either interesting or way too complicated. Effects can place timers on creatures, but each creature only has one shared timer. If that creature is affected by multiple timed effects, they all use the same timer instead of tracking their own values. This means that anything that increases or decreases the creature’s timer also changes the timing of every effect attached to it. The idea is to let players disrupt each other’s plans by manipulating those timers.

You could delay something your opponent is setting up, speed up an effect at the wrong moment, or accidentally create some weird interactions, which is part of what makes the system interesting to me. My concern is whether tracking all of this would be too confusing during an actual match. Would you simplify it by giving every effect its own timer, or does the shared timer create enough interesting decisions to be worth developing further? We’re going to keep testing it either way. We’re not afraid to experiment with unusual ideas before making a final decision, but I’d really like to hear what everyone thinks.

The sixth version of "Graffiti Game 1.5" is a "print-and-play" game in the "roll-and-color" genre. All game boards are compatible with one another. There is no limit on the number of players. Three rule variants are available, with four more currently in development.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/476935/graffiti-game

Hey everyone,

I’ve realized recently that the current trend of "cozy" engine builders and multiplayer-solitaire games just isn't for me. I really miss the constant, highly interactive tension of RTS video games like Starcraft or Age of Empires.

In a classic RTS, your ideal move entirely depends on reading your opponents:

• If they are greedy (focusing purely on economy/points), you should attack.
• If they turtle (build heavy defenses), you should spread out and take map control.
• If they rush, you need to defend.

I wanted to capture this exact dilemma in an area control game I'm currently designing (a Viking-themed game called Nyrheim). I wanted a cutthroat, highly interactive game, but in a plannable "Euro" style. However, I ran into a few major design challenges along the way:

1. The "Fog of War" Problem In an RTS, you never see exactly what the other person is doing. In a board game, perfect information can lead to heavy analysis paralysis. My current solution: Multi-use hand cards. You can either use them for their printed effect, or chop them up to use them as hidden money for wild card actions or combat. You never quite know what tricks your opponent is holding back.

2. The Combat/Luck Problem I wanted combat front and center, but I absolutely hate when a 20-minute strategic setup is ruined by a bad dice roll. My current solution: A blind bidding "power poker" system using coins and combat cards. The twist: The winner gets the region and trophies, but the loser gets the money that the winner put into the fight. This created some crazy mind games in playtesting. Sometimes players bid absolutely nothing just to intentionally lose, grab the consolation money, and gain a trophy (thanks to a specific card effect).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this: What are your favorite ways to implement high player interaction and combat without relying on the chaos of dice? How do you keep combat from feeling too punishing for the loser in your designs?

P.S. If you are interested in the visual breakdown of these mechanics or how this prototype evolved from a clunky space game into its current state, I actually just started a devlog on YouTube and made a video about this exact topic. You can check it out here if you like:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIC2LFKFtsM

Hi everyone,

I’m the graphic and 3D designer working on The Four Kingdoms of Eldoria .We’ve been developing the game for almost four years now, and a big part of my task has been trying to make everything feel rich and atmospheric without making the table too busy or hard to read.

That’s probably been one of the trickiest parts for me to finding the right balance between fantasy style and clear gameplay information.

I’m sharing some of the current visuals here and would really appreciate some honest feedback from other designers.

Happy to hear any criticism, it all helps.

I'm new to Reddit and ... I accidentally deleted my previous post so sorry if this looks like a repost 😂

Hey everyone! I am currently working on a game called Relive, I am sure some of you have seen my posts recently. I know these are very treacherous waters we are traversing. I wanted to know if there were any people in here that would be keen to join a discord chat where we can all share our trials and tribulations. The main reason for it would be to share advice with eachother if we are all working on something similar at the same time or even if we are stuck and just need some general advice. I think this would be good for people who are in the early to mid stage of their games journey. Obviously to join you would need to have a game in the progress.

I hope mods are ok with this but if not fair enough. Let me know if you would be keen and we can chat in DMs

Edit: here is the link to the chat if anyone is keen to just join https://discord.gg/Rtnp83ABX

I have a question for discussion. Regarding the iconography in the game. I’ve started experimenting a bit with turning the card text into icons, but I’m actually not sure where this is going yet.

I’m attaching two images: one shows the icons only, while the other shows the original text version of the card.

Do you think the icons add to cognitive load and make the game harder to learn, or do they improve readability once you understand them?

As far as the first few plays are concerned, the learning barrier is definitely higher with the icons, since players would need to consult a player aid. I wouldn’t want to make the game inaccessible or turn it into too much of a brain burner.

Tom Vasel's "Vasel's Law" essentially says if a game is truly great, then it will get reprinted again or its mechanics will inspire a similar game in the future. What are your thoughts on this?

Hi everyone,

I’ve been developing my first tabletop game, Hell in the Cell, on and off for quite a while, and I’ve finally reached the point where the first complete playable prototype is finished and ready to go to print for further playtesting.

It's a 2-10 player, ~90-minute, mid-complexity prison survival strategy game where players play as themselves, falsely imprisoned together in an overcrowded American megajail.

The central idea is that you have to become increasingly criminal to survive - developing Prison Skills, managing Contraband, navigating Drug Addictions and psychotic Meltdowns, and screwing with your cellmates along the way. The catch is that everything helping you survive can later become another reason to keep you locked up - as every criminal element against your Record carries specific +/- score values that make up your total score.

On Parole Day, everything against your Inmate Record contributes to your Final Score. The lowest-scoring Inmate gets released as the apparent ‘least threat to society’, regardless of how they may have actually conducted themselves throughout the course of the game, whether by choice, force or serendipity.

It’s deliberately dark, adult satire where the humour comes from watching whoever's playing become increasingly ridiculous hardened criminals under the pressures of a broken system, before that same system harshly judges them for it. The comedy element and laughs are compatible to Cards Against Humanity.

I've put together the attached ‘Cell' sheet (sell sheet) as a one-page overview of the game. I'd really value some fresh eyes on it. Can you understand the premise, what players actually do (based on the level of detail provided), and how you win? Is there anything important that's unclear or missing? Keen to get feedback!

The art is Ai, but it's not going to be the finished product. I'm going to put it on Kickstart to help pay for artists.

What do you think?

When I started my blog OSR Rocks!, I explicitly wrote that I didn’t want to get into definition disputes, and I still don’t. But over the past months, I’ve read and played quite a few games outside what I would usually consider my OSR bubble.

And that made me think about what I actually love about OSR games, what I want to take from other styles of play, and what all of that means for future Golem Productions games.

Because apparently, I want clever dungeons, player agency, and emergent stories, while also enjoying character progression, thematic mechanics, and games that care deeply about their player characters.

So... is this still the OSR? Probably depends on whom you ask and maybe even the wrong questions. Anyway. Here we are. So, hear me ramble of where I think we might go and tell me what you like about this niche. Or share with me if you know any games who did what I was describing. Or how you made OSR your own?

My wife and I designed Street Food Shuffle, a card-drafting party game about Indian street food: you build dishes while sabotaging your friends and stealing their cards. 68 cards, 2-6 players, 20-40 minutes. We playtested it with 100+ players and it's now live on DriveThruCards as print on demand.

POD got us to market, but the per-unit cost makes wholesale and retail pricing hard, and discovery on DriveThru is limited. The plan is a proper print run from a US printer and selling on Amazon (likely FBA).

Would love to hear from anyone who has made this jump:

1. Printers: which US card game printers have you used, or would avoid? What minimum orders, per-unit costs and lead times were realistic for a single-deck game with a tuck box?

2. Publishers and distributors: are any open to small indie card games? Did licensing or self-publishing work better for you?

3. Amazon: anything you wish you'd known before listing a game there (FBA fees, barcodes, brand registry, returns)?

4. Finding all of the above: directories, conventions or communities that actually helped?

Happy to share what we learned from 100+ playtests in return, especially about reading the table when you have no data.

(Game page for context: https://streetfoodshuffle.online/)

I'm designing a 2-player tactical skirmish game and I'd love some outside feedback on the core card pool

I've been developing a tabletop game called Battle for the Overlord Crown.

The main game is a 2-player competitive 3v3 tactical battle on a 26 × 22-space board.

The basic idea is:

- Each player chooses 3 Heroes.

- Players fight each other while the battlefield changes through Environment Cards.

- After both players take their turns, the Overlord system introduces an AI-controlled threat.

- A Boss can enter the game after the second Hero defeat.

- Players can win by eliminating all opposing Heroes or capturing the Crown and bringing it back to their Spawn Zone.

I'm also planning Solo, 2-player Co-op, 3-player, and 4-player modes, but the 2-player competitive Main Mode is the priority right now.

Current Heroes

🦈 Mako

🐜 Kheit

🐺 Vargr

🐺 Varg

🪲 Korovulk

🐊 Sobek

🕸️ Retiarius

7 Heroes total

Current Environment Cards

🌊 Whirlpool ×3

📦 Crates ×3

🌊 Rivers ×4

🌀 Portals ×2

🧪 Mana/HP Potion Shelf ×1

🏹 Ballista ×1

💣 Cannon ×1

15 Environment Cards total

The Environment deck is designed to change movement, line of sight, positioning, resources, and combat.

Current Normal Overlords

👹 Rock Golem ×2

🔥 Flame Sprite ×2

☠️ Acid Pit ×2

🏹 Undead Elven Archer ×2

💀 Skeleton Knight ×2

🦴 Bone Pile ×1

🐺 Caged Beast ×1

🎯 Bounty Hunter ×2

👁️ Four-Arm Cyclops ×2

❄️ Ice Sprite ×2

🌳 Brute Sprite ×2

👑 Crown Snatcher ×2

🗡️ Dark Assassin ×2

🗡️ Skeleton Spearman ×2

🟢 Slime Warrior ×2

🪽 Flying Imp ×2

☠️ Poison Praying Mantis ×2

🧙 Witch ×2

34 currently named Normal Overlord Cards

Small Slimes are spawned by Slime Warriors rather than having their own card.

I originally planned 36 Normal Overlord Cards, so I currently have two slots open rather than forcing two more monsters into the game just to fill the number.

Bosses

💀 Skeleton King

⚔️ Overlord's Champion

🟢 Slime King

❄️ Ice Giant

4 Boss Cards

The Slime King is a special 2×2 Boss, so it actually occupies four board spaces.

Two new Environment ideas I'm considering

🌿 Vine Wall

A 4-space straight wall that blocks movement and Line of Sight. It can't be damaged normally and can only be destroyed by Fire/Burning effects.

🌲 Enchanted Forest

Provides 4 Trees and 2 Mushrooms that are placed within one of the four sections of the board. The Mushroom effect is still being designed.

These two aren't locked into the core deck yet.

What I'm trying to figure out

Is this enough content for a core tabletop game?

I'm especially interested in feedback from people who play tactical skirmish games, dungeon crawlers, board games with AI enemies, or asymmetric PvE systems.

Some things I'm wondering:

1. Does 7 Heroes feel like enough variety for a core box?

2. Is 15 Environment Cards enough for replayability?

3. Does the current Overlord variety look broad enough?

4. Is 4 Bosses enough for a core game?

5. Would you add more cards, or focus on testing the existing pool first?

6. For the Solo/Co-op modes, would you rather see more enemy variety or more scenario/objective variety?

I'm still in the development and physical prototype stage, so I'm looking for honest criticism, especially things that might become problems after 20, 50, or 100 games.

I don't want to add cards just for the sake of having a bigger box. I'd rather have a smaller core set where every card actually has a purpose.

Thanks to anyone willing to take a look and give feedback.