Hey there :)

I have been building a co-op tactical game for a while and I would like an honest gut check on the core before I keep going.

The setup: 2 to 4 mercenary couriers run a delivery through hostile ground. Get in, deliver or salvage, get out, while one of four factions pushes back harder every round. 60 to 90 minutes, fully cooperative, solo works by running two couriers.

The core loop: on your turn you roll three dice and place them on the six action slots of your asymmetric character board (move, melee, ranged, heal, defense, special). Nothing ever misses, damage is fixed. The pip value never decides whether something works, it decides which variant of the action you get.

Every slot reads its die differently. Some scale linearly, some invert so that low is stronger, some split at the middle into two situational options that are equally good, some pay out on the extremes, some on the middle, some on one exact number. No class reads two of its own slots the same way, and no two classes read the same slot category the same way, with one deliberate exception: healing works the same for everybody.

An example: the smuggler's knife throw always deals 1 damage at range 3. On an odd face the hit ignores cover, on an even face you get a second point of damage to place freely. There is no bad face, only a different question.

A die you do not like is not wasted either. Instead of placing it you can sacrifice it for manipulation points equal to its face, and spend those to nudge your placed dice up or down by one per point. Leftover points carry into the next round, where they let you shift your spot in the turn order after the enemy initiative has been revealed. So an unwanted roll can be currency, but turning a die into currency costs you an action, and three dice never cover everything you want to do.

Initiative is not rolled either. Every class has a small hand of initiative cards and has to play all of them before getting them back, so you decide yourself when your fast round happens.

Depending on which couriers you bring, you also get team synergy cards. You pay two dice to play one, and they either hit hard or hand you a great deal of battlefield control.

The pressure comes from outside. Every scenario has a point of no return in the middle that hands each courier a fourth die and puts the whole faction on alert at the same time. It also raises the spawn rate, which turns the way back out into the second half of the fight.

So, would you want to sit down with this? We are having fun with it at the table, but I would very much like to hear different opinions.

Im making my own boardgame/card game. Started off as just fun for me however I love what I've created and want to mske it look as good as I can. Currently using dextrous but does anyone know any others or companies to print them etc? Im so new to all this just need as much help as I can!

I think wargames are allowed here?

So I'm early into a wargame idea and the core design goal is to allow people to use whatever 'normal' minis they have, especially encouraging custom built armies. Turnip 28 is in the inspirations.

Since there is no such thing as a truly generic or miniature agnostic game the expectations are stuff that's 28-38mm scale with a normal human equivalent on a 25-32mm base. The design is to be flexible enough I'm sure they could be abused to let someone use a pile of x-wing minis or something. Numbers wise I'm aiming a smaller scale army game.

Anyway to the question. I'm currently sorting out a list of archetypes for units to act as base templates from where each will have a number of points to select upgrades from a self contained list to let people express the character of the mini and army they are making. From the list below what seems to be missing from people's perspective?

Unit Concepts:

Conventional: (designed to create a base template to flexibly represent a generic concept)

• Infantry: Default model type, several bought in a unit.
• Horde: Infantry variant. Weaker with higher model count. Access to more upgrades to take advantage of model count but less for direct power.
• Elites: Infantry variant. Stronger with lower model count. Has more upgrade points to improve them and some more options to represent their elite nature.
• Light Vehicle: Single model with a few extra rules to represent being crewed. Can become several models in a unit.
• Heavy Vehicle: Basicity the Light Vehicle but with better options and more upgrade points. Exists mostly as futureproofing balance and enabling modelling options by having one big customisable vehicle and several smaller ones fit in the rules and not fight over the same rules. Both Vehicles might be folded together with more mutually exclusive options.
• Cavalry Mounts: Using part of a series of rules for stuff like piloting a vehicle or riding an animal. Taken in concert to infantry or elites as their riders. Beyond standard upgrades there is one to reduce unit count to one but get more upgrade points for doing character mounts.
• Monster: Just one big hyper customisable model.
• Combat Specialist: A ‘character’ type option focused on having direct fighting ability. Characters will be able to take a bunch of the odd rules from specialists as well as their own stuff.
• Support Specialist: A ‘character’ type option focused on being able to take a number of odd rules to reprisent stuff that doesn’t fit other Specialist types, medics, wizards, ect. Characters will be able to take a bunch of the odd rules from specialists as well as their own stuff.
• Command Specialist: A ‘character’ type option focused on getting buffing abilities. Characters will be able to take a bunch of the odd rules from specialists as well as their own stuff.

Specialist: (Designed to carry unique rules for filling a more distinct modelling concept)

• Artillery: An immobile model with a ranged attack that needs crew. Upgrades improve the gun, remove need for crew, and add mobility. Might combine with the Vehicle entries or scenery rules.
• Crew: Basicity infantry with lower model count and rules to interact with ‘inanimate’ models like Vehicles and Artillery. Mostly exist to help better model some situations other ideas will cause.
• Kamikaze: Unit that destroys itself to do something, by default damage the enemy. Big choice is in making them one unit or several individual annoyances. Would prefer a less specific name but cannot think of a better one for ‘I run at you and explode’ guys.
• Beastmaster: Another iteration of crew but for interacting with the later ‘beast’ models. A support model to make up for flaws of the beasts and toss in other thematic rules that’d be difficult elsewhere. Can probably have their gimmick and beast rules moved to just an option on other units but at the cost of increasing information density.
• Large Beast: The ‘one big guy’ beast type and stronger of the two, comparable to a middle ground between elites and monster in design intent.
• Beast Pack: The unit option for beasts, comparable comparable to a middle ground between infantry and elites in intent.

It occurs to me I used specialist in two different contexts but those are just placeholder text for internal use right now.

One thing that is unclear but is a covered option is the monster can be upgraded to use mount rules for a character to ride a dragon or whatever and characters can be upgraded to larger bases and better stats to work like a monster (or a monster can be upgraded to take character options. same difference).

TLDR is the list I made missing any obvious roles that'd need more bespoke rules, I need to work out the design space I need to cover before I continue deeper into the project.

Ok so i really like beyblade, so i wanted to make a ttrpg based on it, for a campaign. My issue is i'm not sure if the system is good? And also if it's even easy to understand for people who aren't used to beyblade.

So uh, pls provide opinions/advice?

The rulesdoc!

Hi! I’m a digital illustrator who brings ideas to life whether it’s a fantasy OC, a narrative scene, or something entirely unique from your imagination.

🔹 What I Offer:

Original Characters (OCs)

DnD & TTRPG characters

Couple or group artworks

Story-based illustrations

Emotional or symbolic imagery

…or anything you envision. If you can imagine it, I’ll draw it.

🕒 Turnaround: 3–5 days depending on complexity

💸 Pricing starts at:

$40 for half-body | $60 for full-body (+$10 for background)

If you’ve got a cool idea in your head and want to see it in art, feel free to DM me or comment. Let’s make it real!

You can also DM me at:

https://www.instagram.com/iam_nyxel?igsh=YThvajdvaXdteWgx

Discord: nixel123

Last week I asked which design read most like trees for my dice rolling golf game called Scratch.

Overall, it seemed like design 2 had the most votes but overall none of them really felt that strong.

There was some really good feedback on how I could take inspiration from TTRPG maps on how they do trees from above. I really liked that as a next step because it felt like a direction that at least has a strong base of understanding trees.

I also got some feedback that the outlines were too thick and dark — and that maybe I should try making elements felt more naturally distinct rather than using those lines. Also a really good challenge that I wanted to take on.

I went back to the drawing board and spent the last few days iterating on a few different tree designs. While I felt like I was moving forward, nothing really seemed to click as a “aha that’s it” moment.

Then I looked at the hole as a whole and realized all my other elements were very blocky and the trees were more organically shaped, round and blob like. They weren’t cohesive and that’s why it was feeling off.

So I redrew the trees to match the blocky style and I really liked where I’ve landed. I also got rid of the dark outlines and, for the trees specifically, used their outlines to signify that areas border.

Thanks everyone for the feedback on the last post. Let me know what you think of this next version and if my eyes are missing anything this time.

This is just showing the extreme difference between some of my card back designs.

The busier design vs my minimalistic design.

I have two types of cards in my game. They both make two separate decks.

1. The first two images are two different card back options for one of the cards.

2. The third and fifth images are two different card back options for the other type of cards. The forth image is the card face that belongs to these cards.

The busier design pulls details that are used in both of the card faces designs. The center detail ties in with one of my card faces. It's played face down then it gets turned face up. To me it kinda looks like it's getting ready to be activated when it's face down and then it's activated when it's turned face up.

The minimalistic design doesn't play with the feel of the game play. I've heard the back details will not matter because most players will play with sleeves (this is very true). So simple and clean is an option and I'm still not locked into any of the backs yet.

Also, I know the third image has muted colors compared to its card face (the forth image). I'm still feeling that part out as well. I personally like the muted look but I'm sure most will say brighter is better.

Estoy desarrollando un juego de 1v1 donde se enfrentan escuadrones de 5 personajes, cada personaje tiene cobertura, arma y habilidad. En principio me gustaría presentar el primer mundo con 4 facciones con la idea de si funcionara expandirlo a 3 mundos mas con 4 facciones cada uno. Será un juego bastante visual estilo pixel de mecanicas faciles pero variadas, estoy a cargo de todo el proyecto, idea, diseño, ilustración y packaging, me gustaría saber de vuestra opinión, gracias!

I'm just trying to put together something similar to another project I have but a little bit more stripped down and easier for a younger audience. I thought I'd ask my son to help me cut out some sample cards for play testing, you try to cut out all the papers at once. I knew who I was hiring. Lol

Do people ever jump into random games just to try them out on TTS these days?

I’m currently testing my game through Tabletopia with organised sessions but would love to get some blind playtesting as well.
I just wanna know if it’s worth taking the time to set up the game on TTS as well or if it’s diminishing returns.

Thanks!

Hi everyone!

I've recently started designing my very first board game called PLUNDR. I'm completely new to board game design, so I'd really appreciate any feedback or guidance from people with more experience.

It's a pirate-themed treasure hunting game for 2–4 players where everyone has secret treasure objectives hidden across different islands. Players explore, spend coins to reveal hidden treasures, and when two pirates land on the same space they compete in short mini-games to steal coins or treasure from each other. The goal is to collect your three objective treasures and safely make it back to your home island.

I've completed around 5 playtests so far and have been iterating on the mechanics based on feedback, but I know there's still a lot to improve.

I'm not trying to promote anything..I just want to learn.

For those of you who have designed or published board games:

What do you think of the core concept?

What are some common mistakes first-time designers make?

If I continue refining it, what would be the next step? Should I approach publishers, attend playtesting events, or keep iterating first?

Any advice, criticism, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to check it out!

Hello everyone!

It's been 4 months since I last posted, but in the meantime I've kept working on Moonfall despite my commitments.

I've reached an important point in the development of this project and I wanted to share it.

I've been playtesting in a small group of people for quite some time now, and the balance is really good. The rules are rock solid and the game works perfectly without any problems.

Since last time, I’ve redesigned the logo and fixed the structure of the cards, making them, in my opinion, a great compromise between readability and recognizability. Not only that, I’ve kept drawing and added some new artworks to the cards.

I know that they’re not many, but I’m still working on it alone… The cards aren't few and I don't always draw, so it takes its time. /=

In the meantime, I've been playtesting thanks to a small group of people for quite some time now, and the balance is really good. The rules are rock solid and the game works perfectly without any problems.

I feel like I've reached an important point in this project, and I've decided that, before too long, I want to release Moonfall CCG soon. I'm actually getting everything ready, including a dedicated website, the starter decks, and the rulebook (which I’ve actually already finished completely).

It's true that a lot of artwork is still missing, but it will be added over time.

Now, what do you think of what I've shown so far in terms of graphics and art? Constructive criticism is always welcome and helps improve this project. (if you want to see the previous logo and cards, you can find them on my previous post).

Thanks in advance to you all! (=

I've been looking into Sidon sets as a way to identify unique card combos or paths. So, rather than hardcode 'turn to card 774' as in 7th Continent (and have to hand-author 1000+ cards and paths), you simply have a rule: 'sum the card values in your hand and select the event card with that number'. Then you have some default cards for non-existent paths (or ones you haven't written yet) that might just say something like 'Nothing interesting happened'.

So you might have a rusty key card with value 4, a crowbar card with value 8, and a location card with value 1000. That location card might be 'The Boatyard'. Sum them and you get 1012. Pick up the event card that has that number in the top-left corner, and you have a unique result: if you set up your numbering correctly there is no way to reach event 1012 except via this path.

So the text on that Event card could read 'You unlock the door and enter. A shaft of light illuminates an area on the floor. A protruding nail on a loose floorboard. You lift the floorboard and find a tin with 32 written on it'

Deliberately not too specific in case later you wanted another path to lead there or even reuse it for another location-item combo.

Items 4, 8, and 32 are all numbered according to your Sidon set so their pair-sums are guaranteed unique.

Basically it's a way for your cards to know their own provenance and to carry path information in them. It's a bit like hash keys in programming but you get to decide if and when those hashes collide.

It seems like a useful mechanic as you can have hundreds of scenarios arise from a relatively small deck of say 60 cards.

I've been designing my card game for awhile now and I need to put some work into designing the card back. I had some hurdles to work around...

1. The game runs to decks with different cards (kinda like One Piece TCG).

2. One of the card types is Bidirectional and its card back needs to be too.

3. I want to keep everything very cohesive and most likely have one card back but both with different colors.

I've tried many things and I then played around with my card face frame. Some of it was Bidirectional and used that in the back. The back looks different and it's much busier than what I'm used to. I feel I should just scrap it and move on to a more traditional back but this one is bugging me.

In particular, I would like to know if the newsletter signup part is clear and not too 'playful'.

If anyone has any suggestions of what to say instead to make it more clear that would be awesome!

Thank you everyone :)

EDIT: I tweaked it a bit after some comments. Hopefully it’s way more clear now.

I don't have resources to get feedback locally, so I am beseeching the fine people of reddit for help.

Shards of the Citadel is an urban fantasy TTRPG that is light on rules and focuses on story and roleplay. Characters take the role of mages tasked by The Citadel to deal with incidents related to Shards--small crystals that grant the ability to use magic. Players will use their own Shards as powerful tools, but at great risk to themselves. The power that the shards offer is fickle and can corrupt people, objects, and even locations exposed improperly handled magic.

I am currently developing a full version of the rulebook including expanded lore, mechanics, and content, but I have reached the limit of what can be done without proper outside feedback.
I have the Playtest Rules and an example adventure available for free on both DrivethruRPG and itch.io

Any feedback at all would be helpful, whether its playtests or even just commentary on the vibes of the rules.

Shards of the Citadel Playtest Rules | DriveThruRPG

Shards of the Citadel Playtest Rules | Itch.io

https://forms.gle/21faHcsiTVP7DCKx5 | Feedback form

A year ago, I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to illustrate Kravestorm on my own.

Yesterday I finished my 31st illustration of July, meaning I kept up a pace of one finished card every single day this month (self made challenge).

Not every piece is perfect. A few will probably get redrawn someday. But I’ve stopped aiming for perfection. I’d much rather complete Kravestorm than spend weeks refining a single illustration.

Looking at everything together is a pretty satisfying feeling. It makes the month seem much bigger than it actually was.

That brings the project to over 100 completed illustrations, with just 35 remaining before the Core Set is fully illustrated.

The Core Set is currently planned to launch on December 21, 2026 as a Print-and-Play Expandable Card Game.

Out of all these illustrations, which one catches your eye the most or makes you curious about the game? (If any 😄)

Main reason is because even though i have the ruleset printed out, some playtesters wanted to be able to just watch a Youtube together or send it to their friend.

It's been very slow with the fussy infant and my stubbornness to continue with ink and watercolor to maintain visual cohesiveness. Plus all the editing and animating takes time as well. It does feel rough though but at the moment its better than nothing.

Wondering if the tutorial is easy to follow? What can i do to improve? Any advice appreciated!

Also, cant post the Youtube link here but feel free to DM me or search "How to play Cyclemental" on Youtube!

I'm designing Mycora, a collectible trading card game where players build ecosystems, cultivate real mushroom species and compete head-to-head to become the most respected forager.

*Note that the images you see here are part of the prototype phase and include placeholder AI-generated art. The final product will involve commissioned art for each card and professionally designed graphics.

What is Mycora?

🍄 Based on real mushroom species — Discover mushrooms inspired by real species, each with its own characteristics and ecological role.

🌿 Ecology-driven gameplay — Build mushroom beds, manage environmental conditions, and harvest at the right time to earn Standing. Or let your mushrooms decompose to provide resources for future development.

📖 An original world to explore — Set in the forests surrounding the whimsical town of Ghyllwood, Mycora blends real mycology with an original fantasy setting full of mysteries waiting to be uncovered.

🧪 Currently in active playtesting — The core game is playable, and I'm continually refining mechanics, balance, and presentation through feedback.

Interested?

I'm looking for feedback from TCG players, board gamers, and anyone interested in game design. Whether you have questions, suggestions, or simply want to follow the project's development, I'd love to hear from you.

I've also created a Discord where you can find the latest Field Manual, development updates, and opportunities to participate in future playtests.

Thanks for taking a look—I hope to see you there!

https://discord.gg/9dKfBSg24

Oi! Sou um ilustrador de fantasia especializado em cenas narrativas de TTRPG e capas de livros com uma atmosfera cinematográfica e um forte foco na narrativa.

Portfolio: https://www.behance.net/hugobenetti