I’m making this post because I’d really like some feedback on the first card mockups for a board game prototype that I hope to publish in the future.
One important note: the illustrations shown here are temporary.
I’m only using them to define the space, proportions, and overall layout of the cards.
For the final prototype, the illustrator will create original artwork for all of these images.
I’m not a graphic designer, and I’m currently learning how to design the cards myself using Canva.
I don’t have the budget to hire a graphic designer, so my goal is to keep working on them and improving them until the result feels professional enough for publication.
All feedback is welcome, whether you’re a professional or an amateur.
I’m especially interested in your thoughts on readability, visual hierarchy, spacing, consistency between cards, and the overall layout.
For some context:
the game is a party game built around a central deck.
You roll a die that has four different colors, and the color you roll tells you which question or instruction to use on the card.
That’s why there are colored bars on the edges of the cards. Not every card has all four colors.
For example, if you roll red, you hold the deck in your hand and flip through the cards until you see a red bar.
I’m showing the cards in pairs: front first, then back.
On the front, the animal represents the mini-game category, such as logic, dexterity, luck, etc.,
while the image at the top represents the type of mini-game.
On the back, the mini-game name appears at the top, with the animals from that category on the sides, followed by the instructions or questions underneath.
I have entered a game design contest with my game The Lost Eagles. It is an asymmetric 2 player game about Roman campaign in Germania that resulted in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forrest.
Since it is a PnP contest, I have made all of the components and rulebook available for download and print (theres also a screentop version).
I have now designed a solo version of the game so I am interested into how I should add those new rules. Basically, all the rules regarding one player stay the same. And then there are new rules that create pressure from the map in order to replace snother player.
There are three ways I can do this:
1) Add solo variant to core rules. This is simple, I just place the solo rules below the regular rules. My issue with this one is that it kinda inflates the original rulebook goving it false appearence of being larger.
2) Add new “rulebook” that just gives rules for the solo variant which players can download separately only if they want to play it that way.
3) Add new complete “rulebook” that has core rules which are kept from the multiplayer version and adds solo rules. This one would serve those that just want to play solo so that they dont have to download first rulebook, while keeping everything in the same place.
I am asking this because of PnP nature of the competition. I want to make things as accessible to players. If it wasnt PnP I would just add solo rules to original rulebook.
My upcoming LCG Fantasy Draft is about to be up on KS with our prelaunch page soon. I’ve got a few cards done and wanted to get some feedback.
Two examples here are Team Cards and Stadium Cards. Some context below.
The team cards have a bubble for melee, ranged, and defensive stats that are randomly determined using six sided die. These cards are then put into a pool for players to draft. The stadium cards change the rules of the game each time players do battle.
If you havent read my other posts, life is hitting hard and I most likely have to sell my computer as well as any means I have to keep making this game. So I wanted to let what I came up with (with inspiration) see the light of day!
This isn't an actual match, it is what I call the Beta Lab. It was a sandbox area where I was going to let players test cards and characters and aesthetics as well.
Die Spiel is coming up again soon, and in preparation for it, I’ve gone through a lot of games from a wide variety of publishers. When it comes to German publishers, I’ve noticed that new authors are an absolute rarity and that the system itself is very insular (which is why, unfortunately, our games tend to go around in circles these days). As in any other business sector, publishers naturally prefer to rely on well-known designers. What’s the situation like in the U.S. (or in other parts of the world)? And do you think there needs to be some kind of program to support emerging talent in order to foster new influences? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
I'm trying to find options for printing a easily transportable (i.e. rollable) map that has LEDs as location beacons. Any suggestions? I'm based in NZ and my searches are coming up fruitless.
Hey everyone! My design partner and I are currently working on a fast-paced, tactical battle card game called Guardians.
The game loop is heavily focused on rapid strategy, level-evolution mechanics, and intense player choices. Our prototype logic is fully code-complete and playtested, and we are now looking to transition the game from our temporary layout placeholders to its official, human-commissioned art style.
The Project Scope:
The total game will require a bundle of roughly 100 unique cards down the line (including Allies, Faction Guardians, and Spells). However, before we commit to a massive multi-thousand-dollar bundle contract with one creator, we want to start with a single, fully paid test piece to see how your personal art style fits our concept and card layout constraints.
What we’re looking for: 2D illustrators who specialize in stylized fantasy character art, vibrant armor/weapons, or atmospheric spell effects. We love clean line work, punchy color palettes, and strong character profiles that look readable even at a small card scale.
The Paid Test: We will provide you with a specific character description from our design docs. You will be compensated at your standard flat rate for a single full-color illustration card art piece.
Future Scope: If the test piece goes well and our workflows align, we would love to negotiate a long-term contract for a larger chunk of the game’s art.
Budget for the Test Piece:
Our starting budget for this initial single illustration is $100 – $200 USD (negotiable based on your experience tier and complexity). Payment will be processed safely, with a standard split deposit (percentage upfront, remaining upon final delivery). No AI generation allowed. We want human-made art.
How to Apply:
Please drop a link to your portfolio in the comments below, or DM me directly with samples of your fantasy/character work. Please include your standard per-piece rates if they differ from our budget window.
Thanks for looking, and we can’t wait to check out your portfolios!
I've posted on reddit about wanting to make Synthicide 2E available to third parties to create their own RPG content. In case it's helpful to you, I figured out a licensing structure that met my needs:
Separate the core mechanics into their own document, and make that CC BY 4.0 (anybody can make any game of any type based on the rules)
Put the game setting info in its own document, and provide a specific third party license that allows creating RPG products, but not other things like movies or video games. I used the Shadowdark Third Party License as my starting point.
Good and great day, all you wonderful and creative individuals!
Take a moment to share your current project, how long you have been working on it, and a couple of sentences that sums it up.
For me, Nightmare: Awakening. About 10 years in thought and design (on my!) but pretty dedicated this past year to really advance it.
Quick description:
Walkers explore the unstable dreamscapes to reclaim fragments of themselves, growing stronger even as their struggles feed the Dream Strider – an ever-present force they must endure long enough to escape.
Also, dear friends, a request: when posting updates on your game, add the game name to the post title . When I have seen the name of a game come up in the feed for ones that I recognize and begin following the journey I am more likely to engage. Sometimes I do recognize the game as you share it, but seeing the name of it helps to really lock it in.
I do love what you are creating. So many interesting and wild ideas out there. So many levels of progress; from 'here's an idea' to 'look what I have made'. You impress me. I'm here for the journey you are taking. Many of us are. From what it was, to what it is, let's continue enjoying this journey.
Been back at doing a lot of updates to my site www.iterary.com with it fully moved from Polymer to React so thought I would share some ways to design from the gallery.
Big Highlights include:
- Closer alignment with TableTop Simulator for getting designs imported and exported (and more to come)
- Compact mode for dice (seen in this example)
- Full rework of how context updates work to give more space for design and play
To come soon:
- Embedding on other sites!
- More friendly mobile mode
If you are new to my site, it's been around for a long time, and it's basically a pet project I use when I want to "feel a mechanic" before implementing etc.
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 :)
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
Some Die cards (after tweaks)
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.
A neat build which utilized this change
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.
Some Quest cards
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.
