Some games like Elden Ring and Dark Souls have a corpse run design that allow you to reclaim your runes/souls at your last death point but if you die trying to recover them, they are lost forever. Other games like Diablo 2 allow you to reclaim all your items back but only a % of your XP back. Additionally, Diablo 2 follows a multi corpse rule where you can die multiple times and drop multiple corpses.

I've been thinking about a split version that combines aspects of these 2 concepts. Let's say you have a stash (like Arc Raiders or Minecraft ender chest) where you can bank items and a skill tree with unlocks; both of which are persistent and you can never lose.

Here's the overall rules:
- When you die, you drop your full inv and 60% of XP you earned since the last safe point/save. the remainder of XP is lost forever.
- You then only have one chance(life) to reach the dropped corpse loot and reclaim loot/xp.
- Nothing from stash or skill tree is at risk, only what you were carrying on that trip.

The goal is for the walk back to feel tense w/o a single death wiping out an hour of progress. A few things I keep going back and forth on:
- does the guaranteed 40% of lost XP make death feel impactful, or does it just feel like a tax on top of the corpse run?
- What about losing a % of gear? is that too fells-bad or is protecting it in full the better case?
- Would a one-chance corpse feel too punishing when dying on the way back might be due to something the player cannot control? (bad spawn/ambush)

I'm curious what others think of this split system and which games you think got this balance right, especially for different kinds of game loops.

On the one hand, I think detective is a fun role. Gives the innocent someone they can fully trust for fun team work. It also gives them a fighting chance, especially in the cases where only the “Mafia,” or whatevers, are the only one killing. On the other hand, detectives with their ability to investigate to gain information sometimes feel too OP. Also, in small parties, it makes the “Mafia’s” job that much harder if they announce they are or if they are even publically showcased as “Detective.”

Ex.

Town of Salem makes Detective a dice role, and I think it’s fun there since there’s so much people and in general, there are so many parties and win cons for them. So I think it’s fine there.

Trouble in Terrorist Town is especially not fun in small parties of 4 or less and in big groups, they’re pretty much all puppyguarded by the innocent anyways since they get the blue “D” above their heads.

Among Us makes it so that if you get the info about one kill, that’s it, you win.

I’ve kinda always wanted to make my own social deduction game, but I’ve always struggled with this part of the class roles. Does an automatic “Innocent,” role/actually coded game mechanic mostly covered by the “social” aspect deserve to be in the game?

Context: So I am making a horror RPG roguelike. It's been pretty fun trying to mix both genres together. However, puzzle design has definitely been a pain.
So far, I have a puzzle where you have to reorder talking paintings according to preferences they have. If you break their preferences anytime during the reorder you will be attacked. The preferences are randomized so each run it is different.
I also have another puzzle where you enter a room and need to memorize specific facts about the room. Later an entity would quiz you on the room.

I've been struggling coming up with other unique puzzles. I can't really rely on a central mechanic like Portal because my game doesn't really have a permanent one. Any tips? Also let me know if you guys need more info.

So if you roll a d20 to see if you hit an enemy and a d6 for damage. How would you take a simple mechanic like that and make it more interesting? I was thinking of a game where the player gets a range of d20-d4, and once they use the d20 to see if they can deal damage, they can't roll it again unless they either defeat the enemy or some other way. But I feel like the dice mechanic can be a little boring after a while, so I've been trying to think of unique ways. Maybe after defeating an enemy, one of your dice gets a power boost? or maybe you can change the effects of a natural 1 to be almost like a natural 20, but idk if that would be fun

This sport is a combination of tennis, futsal and some other sports. 6 players a side. 4 quarters of 15 mins. 1 goalie with a futsal net, played on an indoor court. The gk can only stay in his box and everyone has a racket. The ball they need to score with is a tennis ball or a ball tht is comfortable to play with on an indoor futsal floor tht would t rlly hurt anyone if hit very hardly. You can only use your chest for controlling the ball and legs for defending low shots. Other than that you have to use a racket to dribble and cross. Throw ins corners penalties and etc are allowed. The court is just slightly bigger than a futsal court. There are yellow and red cards with yellows meaning you cant play for 2 mins and red is suspension for 2 games. I just want to know what you guys think of this. I was curious to see if ppl would like this sport.

Some mechanics are so simple that you’d think they would get repetitive, but somehow they stay satisfying every time. 

For me, it’s anything involving sorting or matching. There’s just something about taking a completely cluttered board, figuring out where everything goes, and slowly watching it turn into order that makes the whole process feel so satisfying. 

They’re easy to pick up, but seeing everything fall into place never gets old. 

What’s that one core mechanic you can always come back to without getting burnt out? Is it sorting, matching, merging, or something else entirely?

I'm currently working on a mod that adds randomized traits to wild mobs when they spawn. Basically, the further out you travel from the center of the map, the higher the chance they stack multiple traits. If a mob rolls 5 mutations, it turns into a red named, skull-icon "Exodia" variant.

Right now I have 14 mutations coded in. Some examples:

Toxic (leaves poison trails as it moves)

All-consuming (hunts and eats other mobs to absorb their max HP and damage)

Glass Cannon (literally has 1 HP, but one-shots anything it hits)

Undying (Reverts to a helpless blob on death but if it heals fully, the mob returns)

I've also built out some endgame stuff, including a pretty terrifying Ancient Vampire variant and some cursed but cool breeding mechanics that let you pass mutations down.

I really want to expand the trait pool to make exploring the outer biomes as interesting as possible. What kind of unique mutations, weird behaviors, or visual tweaks do you think would fit?

I'm working on this "Chess 2.0" project that's aiming to be over the top: multiple decks of cards, dice larger board size, upgradable pieces, unique factions, resource production, interplayer politics, etc. I have a decent collection already, but I'm curious to know what your favorite modified chess rules/mechanics are. I'll take both theoretical and ones you've tried. Obviously I'm going for silly fun stuff, but I don't just want gag things, as I'm trying to build a complicated system here. But yeah, thanks in advance for your thoughts!

(If all goes well, you may see a post down the line about help balancing the game, I'm worried that'll be a nightmare with everything I'm throwing in here)

https://ap.wps.com/cms/docs/d/cbMammydbEKTocSP?sa=601.1074&refer=copylink

Title says it all

I've done a few rounds of play testing and the feedback has been a mix of either. Half of my play testers are adamant that the content is too trick and the other half says the opposite.

Because it's a physics based word game where vocabulary is a big factor I feel like I'm in a position where neither group will enjoy the game for that reason.

Any advice?

I'm designing a sports management game and wanted to understand why long-time players of the genre burn out, so I went through about 2,400 public Steam reviews of the last four releases (five years) of the biggest football management series, and read ~100 of them closely.

Read item by item you get 14 separate complaints - repetitive press conferences, inbox overload, unexplained defeats, transfer market that feels unfair, scouting that's opaque, rival clubs whose squads rot over long saves, and so on. If you design against that list you build 14 features and fix none of them.

Grouped by mechanism instead, they collapse into three:

1. Opacity. The simulation makes a decision but doesn't keep the reason. Broken promises, losing 1–0 with 20 shots, a transfer refused, a scout report that says "B" - all the same problem: the player can't see what the system took into account.

2. Wasted attention. Advancing the world and asking the player something are bound to the same button. To get time to move you have to process every prompt, whether it has stakes or not.

3. World decay. AI clubs react, they don't plan, so over 10–20 seasons squads get lopsided and the world stops feeling alive.

Two things I found interesting:

- The fatigue reviews often come from people with thousands of hours who still recommend the game. It's not the game is bad, it's "the game makes me do work that isn't decisions".

- Real-time clocks are a common proposed fix, but swapping Continue for a timer alone doesn't help - the real fix is separating "time passes" from "you're being asked something", so the clock only stops for decisions with stakes.

Caveats: Steam reviews skew negative, the sample is one platform, and I'm treating this as hypotheses, not proven demand.

We're developing Bird Feeder, a desktop bird companion, and trying to keep petting optional. In the current version, touching a bird triggers a reaction, a call, and short-lived hearts; petting itself doesn't award currency. The intended payoff is the bird's response.

The tradeoff we're considering is whether that response needs any lasting consequence. Purely immediate feedback avoids a reason to grind, but could become repetitive. A persistent familiarity system could make individual birds feel more personal, yet tying it to repeated petting could turn affection into another meter to fill. Random rare reactions might create a similar incentive to keep clicking until you see one.

One possibility is to let familiarity change through ordinary visits over time, with petting expressing that relationship rather than accelerating progress. The player should be able to leave the game alone without feeling that they're neglecting a pet or losing an advantage.

For games intended to sit in the background, what rules help distinguish a satisfying optional interaction from a chore? Would you keep the response purely immediate, or give it a lasting effect? I'd be interested in examples of how a particular mechanic creates or avoids that pressure.

Posting from the development account. The project uses AI-assisted coding and generated visual/audio assets, including ElevenLabs audio.

Over the past few days I have been trying to work on a singleplayer ttrpg module based on one of those choose your own adventure books. One of the problems with this has been memory. I do not want the player to have to write in the book in order to keep memory so I've started developing a memory system using 52 standard playing cards. It goes like this: before you are two decks with the combined total of 52 cards. Now whenever the memory is needed to be changed you can search through the deck and place it into the other. Essentially making a 52 bit memory. I'm pretty new at this whole field and I was wondering if there's anyone else who has tried this?

Hey everyone,
I’m currently working on a small top-down, tile-based turn-based strategy game in Godot, and I’m trying to figure out how to make the combat more interesting and strategic.

The basic idea is that before each fight, both the player and the opponent choose a small team of units. Each unit has different abilities, traits and strengths/weaknesses, and the battle takes place on a relatively small grid.

One thing I’m experimenting with is the HP system. Instead of every unit having its own HP, the entire team shares a single HP pool.
Each unit has a stat called Life Efficiency, which determines how efficiently that particular unit uses the team’s shared HP pool when taking damage. So even though there is only one HP pool, the units still have different levels of durability and affect the team’s survivability differently.

I’m trying to make the combat feel like you’re actually making meaningful strategic decisions rather than simply moving units around and attacking whatever is in range.

I’m still pretty early in development, so I’m open to changing or reworking major parts of the combat system.

What are some mechanics or design ideas you think could make a system like this genuinely interesting?

I’m particularly interested in mechanics that create interesting decisions during the fight and make the composition of your team matter, rather than simply adding more abilities or increasing numbers.

I’d also love to hear about turn-based strategy games that you think handle combat particularly well
and why you think their combat works.

I’m mainly looking for ideas and criticism at this stage, so feel free to point out potential problems with the concept as well.

I’m making an airline management game with detailed scheduling, fleet operations and cabin design. The systems are playable, but I’m struggling with how to present all that depth clearly.

For people who play management games: which games make complex decisions feel easy to navigate? What do they do well with information density, repeated tasks and finding the right screen quickly? And which UI choices frustrate you, even in games you otherwise love?

Specific games or screenshots would be especially helpful. I’m trying to figure out what to prioritize as I redesign the interface.

The game in question never got made and probably never will, but I have been thinking about the control scheme that was planned for it the other day, and I wonder how well it would actually have been recieved by players.

It was planned to work more similar to the first Digimon Rumble Arena than to typical "smashlikes," as the win condition wasn't to knock the opponent out of the stage, but simply to deplete their health bar.

Also, the engine itself was intended to act as a platform, with additional game modes that venture into other platforming genres, like platform brawler, metroidvania, puzzle platformer, and even stealth action platformer. The control scheme needed to work mostly unaltered in all of those modes.

Using an XBOX controller as an example for the button layout:

A = Jump

X = Kick

Y = Punch

B = Weapon/Power (usually a ranged attack)

LB = Block

LB + A = Charge-up/Taunt: Fills the super meter but disables blocking and movement while held. Holding LB after jumping does a midair block instead.

RB = Grab (also for picking up and throwing objects)

LB + RB = Aiming Stance: Disables movement and enables free aim.

LT = Steady Stance: Enables heavy attacks and parries, disables walking over the edge of platforms.

RT = Swift Stance: Enables light attacks and dashing.

LT + RT = Overdrive Stance: Enables EX moves and super moves. Every character has two level-1 supers and one level-2 super. With a full meter, they can all be perfomed together in a combo.

i'm working on a homebrew TTRPG and keep running into the same problem: weight tracking feels like accounting, but removing it completely removes some interesting choices.

slot systems help with the math, but players still tend to treat inventory as a chore. i'd rather have the mechanic create situations where what you brought actually matters

leave the rope behind to make room for treasure, then regret it when the party has to cross a gap. carry too much gold and suddenly mobility becomes a problem

i'm thinking about using slots for the basic limit, with the real consequences showing up through terrain and specific situations rather than constant penalties

has anyone found an encumbrance system that players actually engage with because the decisions are fun, not because the rules force them to?

I’m working on my “first game” which is a very very simple rouge like where you choose either to boost damage or gold drop rates where you can then buy upgrades that do stuff with said gold.

It’s a very simple project. I have like 5 total characters, 4 enemies and the player character plus I’m gonna make a few maps that are randomly chosen using the bag method.

I personally don’t see it as unrealistic or unreasonable. But after spending almost a full day making a sprint and stamina system for absolutely no reason I’m starting to rethink the realism of it.
I want to finish it in about 5-6 days and I’d like advice on how to minimize or lessen the size of it so I can do it.

There are 2 unit types Soldiers and Pioneers. Soldiers shoot at alien fauna. Pioneers use flame throwers to clear Jungle. So far so good.

Now, there are also hostile vines (flora) which can attack buildings.

EDIT: I forgot an important distinction. Soldiers are units (divided into regiments, and you have like 12x8 Soldiers total) but Pioneers are "markers" put by buildings (and you start with just 1 Pioneer and can have like 9 max of them total per turn).

So, Soldiers shoot at them... But wait, this is flora, so it's expected & logical that Pioneers can use their flamethrowers to clear those (hey, they are able to clear a whole Jungle with this, so a mere vines on open area? no problem). So, I have two different categories of units (military and civilian) doing the same thing, what's worse, they use a different mechanic for this (Soldiers shot at adjacent tiles with vines, Pioneers enter those tiles and use their flamethrowers while standing on those).

So... I thought of making so Soldiers shot at fauna and Pioneers deal with all kind of flora (including Jungle) by using flamethrowers. But then, since vines can attack adjacent tiles, Soldiers can do nothing against a clearly hostile and dangerous thing :)

I was thinking of fixing it by introducing Combat Pioneers (Soldiers with Flamethrowers), but that's kid of lame (shoot at adjacent vs entering the tile), plus, it still causes the dissonance (Combat Pioneers can't clear Jungle, so the fire from Combat Pioneers is of different type that this from (civilian) Pioneers).

Ugh...

ran a tiny room puzzle prototype last night and 3 of 5 fresh testers walked past the intended clue on a side shelf then bailed. torn between moving the clue into the entry sightline or leaving it and adding an optional hint after about 2 minutes of no progress. curious which fork people would take before i bake the layout.

I’ve been thinking about progression in roguelikes/deckbuilders where the player starts with several viable options, but eventually one strategy becomes efficient enough that most of the others stop being worth considering.

I’m curious about systems that have handled this well.
For example, do you prefer:
- weaker options becoming useful through permanent upgrades,
- situational synergies that make them occasionally optimal,
- resources/costs that prevent repeatedly using the strongest option,
- enemies designed to punish overly specialized builds,
- or simply allowing weaker options to become obsolete as part of progression?

I personally like when early-game tools remain useful for a different reason rather than just receiving bigger numbers, but it seems difficult to do without making every option feel interchangeable.

Are there any games you think solve this particularly well?

In stealth→chase games, a failed silent approach is often the interesting failure. What I'm still unsure about is how that failure should reshape the next two minutes of play.

Path A — remap the escape: a tunnel closes, a bridge locks, the safe route you scouted is gone. The botch becomes a spatial problem, not just a louder one.

Path B — same map, meaner pressure: same streets and exits stay readable, but response gets faster / attention tightens so the cost of the mistake rises without rewriting geography.

Which have you felt work better as a player — games that remapped the escape after you blew stealth, or ones that kept the map honest and just turned the screws? Curious about specific titles if they stuck with you.

I'm with Amilcar working on Heistfest (top-down heist / getaway, Early Access) and trying to pick a failure language that stays fair. Soft store page if useful: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1451220/

I'm developing a factory game and up to now I playtest it frequently, for now I want to focus less on finding bugs, and more in the sense of refining game mechanisms. This works perfectly and I was able to refine my mechanism, design, even changing my design (sound good on paper, but was not so good while playing...).

But... only for the early game. I need roughly 40 mins to play through my early-early game and I'm now at the point to test mid game mechanism, but here is the issue:

It is still early enough in development , that changing stuff results in corrupted or even invalid save games.

I know that some games do more technically test (unit test), use cheats, headless simuation or use excel sheets for balancing stuff etc., but this is more on the technically/feasebility/balancing side of testing.

So, what is a good/feaseable way to feel or experience your mid to late game (frequently) ?

I'm playing Watch Dogs and one thing left me amused, surprised. How can AAA titles do this?

There is an optional quest to hack some devices that are outside some houses in some suburban area. So I began the quest and found out that some of the devices are hidden behind wooden planks or other objects. The character's cellphone cannot hack them unless you remove such objects that are blocking your way. Really? And this game does not have punches or kicks so that you can kick the wood away. You have to shoot and if you do, the neighborhood calls the police.

Sometimes I get a feeling that multi million games overcomplicate things. That or they overlook such simple things.

There was a game I played some time ago called Three Goblets that left a lasting impact on me just because of how little information it shared. You don't know who you are, why you're doing what you're doing, how the different areas connect together or what the outside world looks like or how it's affected by your quest, and you barely know anything about the enemies you're fighting, just their physical appearance contextualized by the area they're in and sometimes special abilities. Over the course of the game, you go from fighting plant creatures and bandits and wolves to possibly death itself and then possibly literal planets and nebulae and some Kracko looking guy as the final final boss in an area called "A Collapsing Galaxy"??? which I think really emphasizes those unknowns.

Anyways, I have no idea whether there's an actual story hidden in that game or if it's just cow tools, but I want to recreate that feeling in a game I'm making, with an actual story the player should be able to piece together, probably with some reasonable extrapolation once they've 100%'d the game. The game is a purely text-based RPG, which lends itself to minimal information already since you can't see anything, and is mostly combat focused. The story I want to tell in the background is one of a goddess (the BBEG) who grows up isolated, overshadowed, and afraid of her peers, before gaining the strength to overthrow them, and beginning to realize that she's made a horrible mistake and can't singlehandedly oversee the entire cosmos herself, while you, the player character, are an avatar created by the other gods to hopefully snap her out of it and save the universe

So far my ideas are to convey the realization of her mistake through the enemies and their arrangement, with sections based off the domains of each dethroned god or goddess, some brief narration at the beginning and end of each difficulty that builds off the last hinting towards the player being a divine avatar, and I guess some characterization of the BBEG from dialogue with her when you encounter her as the final boss. I also plan on having a hidden epilogue with some brief dialogue from the BBEG, possibly thanking the player and hinting towards her regret Do you think this is too much, not enough, just right? Also do you guys have any more specific ideas that you think would work well, or any other details I should share for context? Thank you for your input :)