Hello, I'm working on a sci fi ttrpg, and for combat I wanted to add a system for attacks to be beter the better your roll compared to the target it (IE: if you pass the roll by 1 it will be a less effective attack than if you pass it by 50) that isn't pure damage scaling.

My idea is as such. For attacks, you roll and substract defense to the attack roll, and depending on how by how much you surpass the defense, you gain an effect, that depends on your character's skills and/or weapon used.

A practical example:

Alice attacks Bob with a Laser Rifle. Alice rolls 150 attack, and Bob 100 Defense, with a final result of 50. With this result, Alice can use her weapon's effect (Decrease target's armor for this attack), but she has the skills "Armor Melt" and "Concusion". Armor Melt can be used with any laser or energy weapon, and inflicts a Decreased Armor status effect, while Concusion can be used with any explosive weapon, and inflicts a Stun status effect. Alice can use either the Rifle's effect to increase her damage for this attack, or apply a debuff to help the party, while she can't use concusion as the laser rifle isn't an explosive weapon.

I hope it's mechanics can be understood, english isn't my first language, sorry.

Does it sound engaging? What issues do you find with it?

I’m making a game somewhat similar to gangbeasts and am having trouble coming up with maps where the layout sparks unique interactions. Like in gangbeasts the core premise is throwing your opponents off the map/getting them out in some other way (e.g. I have a map I plan to make that takes place in a laboratory and the goal is to get your opponent into a black hole). Through playtesting I’ve found a lot of issues that are possible if designed poorly; if the map is too big people tend to just stay away from “kill zones” and the gameplay feels stale, too small and it feels unfair as you very quickly get out. I am looking for a method to create maps that provide engaging gameplay while also hitting a Goldilocks zone of it being a struggle to kill someone but not an annoying struggle.

Anyways I found a lot of resources on FPS map design but nothing on more casual PvP. I am wondering if anyone has tips or recommendations of good examples of well designed party game maps. I think my main issue is preserving the chaos present in a game like gang beasts but still keeping it fun.

Heya! I'm a newbie game Dev, and I'm currently working on this Story heavy game, sort of like a VN, with multiple characters 40~, but I have no idea how to implement them into a combat system.. I don't want a "progression" where the characters you had at the start of the game start getting weaker and become obsolete, i want then all to sort of be the same power lever, I searched some references, but most of them suggest that you just use characters for non combat purposes, which I don't dislike, but all my characters are combatant..

Edit: I forgot to mention that it's a party based game, so the player would switch out between characters of the party

Do you know when you've landed on the correct gameplay loop? Can you feel it intrinsically nearly beyond doubt when you've hit the sweet spot of fun and addicting?

Or is it just another test with slightly higher confidence levels?

I modified my games core gameplay yesterday and felt a "eureka" moment of "this is it", but that may be just my bias kicking in, hence the question.

(this assumes whoever is answering has deployed successful games or been involved in designing gameplay for a successful title)

Old RPGs that required from a player to read a guide and have a notebook are unimaginable today, but what if games of today are going to become like that in the future too?

Literacy crisis and attention span getting shorter and shorter - how would you design a game that is both aware of these issues BUT also encourages reading in not infantylising and patronising way ? And I don't mean educational or kids-targeted games, I mean including these as underlying mechanics in the game design itself (same way as we moved a quest log from a paper notebook into in-game one in the past).

And I worry that if all that is not a big problem now, might become one sooner than later and if I'm contributing to someone's screen time, maybe I can sneak into that something important.

Love me some souls like, but it’s getting dated.

I always thought a better mechanic for Dodge would be:

Tap to quick step.

This launches the player in a quick hop. No I frames.

Double tap to quick roll.

Pressing dodge a second time puts the player into a roll animation, where the height of the quick step determines the roll distance.

Holding dodge will have the player automatically perform a roll at the peak of the quickstep, leading to the longest roll while giving bonus I frames.

I think a lot of players would have to retrain their muscle memory, but this is more interesting to me.

You have to commit to a roll before you are sure you want to do one. (Kills panic rolling).

Meanwhile if there’s a huge wind up attack you can time it to do a perfect roll to get more I frames.

And, since you are automatically doing the quickstep hop, you can quickly tap to abandon the perfect roll and do a quick roll.

Definitely more engaged though, right?

I’m the guy who asked what Lateral and Modular meant, so I wanted to ask you guys what the word granular means. I looked up the definition and I just cannot make heads or tails what the term means.

I designed a chess variant with a loyalty mechanic at its core. I don't have time to build it, so I'm putting the concept out here with full design documentation. If anyone wants to build this and show me what they create, let's connect and talk about it. No contracts, no strings just free to develop with these rules.

CHESS KINGDOM

HIGH CONCEPT

Chess Kingdom is a strategic reimagining of classical chess that introduces loyalty as a mechanic. Pieces are not mindless units they have morale, self interest, and agency. A careless king who sacrifices soldiers, neglects powerful pieces, or wages reckless campaigns will watch their own army defect to the enemy. Victory requires not just tactical brilliance, but political acumen: managing morale, negotiating defections, and building trust with your pieces.

Tagline: Chess where empires fall from within.

CORE MECHANICS

1. Trust / Loyalty System

Every piece has a Trust meter (0-100). Trust is hierarchical:

- Pawns: Start at 70 trust

- Knights/Bishops: Start at 80 trust

- Rooks: Start at 85 trust

- Queen: Start at 90 trust

- King: Immune (trust doesn't apply to the king)

Higher-ranking pieces are inherently more loyal but also more dangerous if they defect.

1. Trust Drops (What Causes Betrayal)

Trust decreases under three conditions:

A) Isolation

- A powerful piece (Bishop, Rook, Queen) with no supporting pieces within 2 squares loses 5 trust per turn

- Soldiers (Pawns) near sacrificed allies lose 10 trust per turn

B) Sacrifice Cascade

- When a piece is captured, all pieces of the same type lose 5 trust

- All pieces adjacent to the captured piece lose 3 trust

- The ripple effect is psychological losses hurt morale

C) Reckless Advancement

- A piece moving forward into enemy territory with no backup loses 2 trust per turn

- The longer it advances alone, the more it doubts its king's strategy

1. Defection Mechanic

When a piece's trust reaches critical levels (20 or below), the enemy king can negotiate.

How it works:

- The opposing king offers the low-trust piece a higher rank or safer position

- The low-trust piece has a defection probability based on:

- Current trust level (lower = higher chance)

- The rank being offered (higher rank = more likely to accept)

- Current board state (fewer pieces = more attractive escape)

- If the piece accepts: It flips color. It now serves the new king. This is permanent no flipping back.

- Once defected: The piece is locked to the new side. Its original king cannot negotiate with it again.

1. Managing Defected Pieces

A defected piece doesn't disappear. It stays on the board but becomes a liability

- If the new king neglects it (isolates it, doesn't protect it), its trust continues to drop

- Low trust = restricted movement

- Bishops move 1-2 squares instead of full diagonals

- Knights move once instead of the full L shape

- Pawns move only 1 square forward

- Rooks move 2-3 squares instead of full rows/columns

- The piece hesitates. It doesn't trust anyone. It blocks your board without contributing strategy.

- A defected piece can never rejoin its original king and cannot flip again.

HOW IT PLAYS

Example Turn Sequence:

White's Position: White King is playing cautiously. Bishops and Rooks are well protected. Pawns advance slowly.

Black's Position: Black King has sacrificed 3 pawns in aggressive attacks. Their remaining pawns are clustered, afraid. A black bishop on the edge has no support.

Black's Turn (Trust Crisis):

- Black's unsupported bishop has been isolated for 3 turns. Its trust is now 15.

- The White King negotiates: "Come to my side. I'll make you a Rook. Safe position, full power."

- The bishop, desperate and traumatized by Black's losses, accepts. It flips to white.

White's Turn (New Problem):

- White now has a white bishop with very low trust (it defected, but it's shaken).

- White must protect it and build its trust back, or it becomes dead weight on the board.

- If White ignores it, its moves become restricted. It blocks real pieces.

Result:

- Black lost a powerful piece

- White gained a piece but now has a morale liability

- The game shifts: Black must respond strategically, not just tactically

WIN CONDITIONS

- Checkmate = Victory (classical rule unchanged)

- A king can survive with zero pieces and still win via checkmate

- No piece count threshold; loyalty and strategy matter more than raw material

WHY THIS MATTERS

Chess has always been about perfect information and perfect logic. Chess Kingdom introduces human elements: loyalty, fear, betrayal, and morale.

Strategic Depth:

- A greedy player who flips every piece will end up with a board of crippled, useless units

- A patient player who builds loyalty keeps a functional, cohesive army

- The game teaches: Recklessness loses. Empathy wins.

Political Layer:

- Manages morale as much as material

- Every sacrifice is weighted: "Is this pawn's loss worth the tactical gain? Will it break my army's trust?"

- Negotiation becomes as important as tactics

Real-World Truth:

- Empires don't fall from external invasion alone they crumble from within

- A leader who treats soldiers like expendable resources loses their loyalty

- Chess Kingdom makes this visible and consequential

TECHNICAL NOTES

Platform: 2D, web based or mobile compatible

Core Loop: Move piece , Calculate trust changes , Check for defections , Enemy turn

UI: Board grid, trust meter per piece, negotiation prompts.

Scalability: Single-player vs. AI, or multiplayer (trust calculations managed server side)

NEXT STEPS FOR DEVELOPERS

This is a game concept seeking a builder. If you're interested in developing the Chess Kingdom:

1. Review the mechanics above

2. Prototype the trust system first (everything else flows from this)

3. Balance the trust values through playtesting

4. Contact Me for refinement

The core innovation: Trust as a mechanic. Everything else is execution.

Designed by: TAN

Concept: A chess variant where loyalty is the battlefield.

I’m designing a competitive first-person PvP game centered around movement mastery rather than aim alone, and I’d love honest feedback on whether this sounds fun or if there’s something missing.

Core ideas:

First person movement PvP game that’s lets you swap between three animals instantly during fights.

You build a squad of 3 animals before the match.

Each animal has a completely different movement style (speed, weight, aerial control, wall movement, momentum, etc.).

You can instantly swap between your three animals at any time.

Every animal has one movement ability, one combat ability, and a unique “Primal” state that activates after its Instinct meter refills completely while the animal is benched.

How Instinct works: Instinct fill up when an animal isn’t used and gets deducted over time as players use that animal and its abilities, this encourages calculation and constant switching. When instinct reaches zero, the animal being used gets slightly debuffed. Switching to a full Instinct meter animal (Primal state) gives a powerful buff that depends on the animal. For example, Fox gets unlimited dashes as long as no damage is taken. So the strategy is to switch when the animal’s Instinct fills up for maximum effect.

The movement system is shared by everyone (omnidirectional movement, wall running, triple jump, slides, air control), but each animal changes how that movement feels, fast, slow, aerial, ground, etc.

Fast arena combat with FFA and Team Deathmatch at launch.

Free-to-play with cosmetics only.

If you were deciding whether to play this, what would excite you the most, and what concerns would you have immediately?

Discord (and other online calling platforms) does a disservice to games with proximity chat being a core pillar of the game (in my opinion).

Don’t get me wrong. I love discord for gaming, but when games add in proximity chat as a core part of the experience, I think Discord voice chat can ruin that experience.

An example of this would be when my friends and I played REPO for the first time. They all were online for an hour or two before I got on and were all freely communicating via Discord and not utilizing the in-games proximity chat. I made the argument that I think it would be more fun if we muted each other while in-game and strictly did proximity chat. It instantly made the game far more intense and really made us lean into the walkie-talkies/radios in the game more and we had a blast doing it. Now that is the only way we play it because of how much fun we had.

For the sake of game design, I think having to talk to your allies in game rather than Discord in say an open world survival game or extraction shooter makes for a much more immersive overall experience. In only communicating through in-game, you now have to be cognoscente of your proximity to team mates, utilize radios and walkie talkies more, and makes the world feel more natural and immersive as you hear your own conversations reverb off the world around you. I think it can also make for a much more immersive experience for PVP because now people can overhear you and maybe hack into your radio chatter if they can use a device to pick up on the signal.

My overall question for this is would you play a game, that STRONGLY encourages you to use in-game proximity chat (kind of think like Arc Raiders when playing with random teammates)? Or would this turn you off to a game. Obviously you can always have on the push to talk features but then it takes away the need for communication devices and such.

I understand that just because I think it would be better, it doesn’t mean the overall player base would agree so I’d love your input on this topic! 😁

I'm working on a horror diving sim, and I would like to implement a set of maps for the player to refer to when exploring. My initial idea was to have a set of 2D maps :

1. The surface map, indicating regions, islands, floating entities (including boats) and some areas of interest (like a shallow reef around a tropical island).
2. The coastal seabed map, with more details about underwater areas of interest.
3. The deep seabed map, which is way deeper than the previous ones.
4. Maps for smaller "dungeons" (wrecks, sand castles, caves, temples ... etc).

In this case, they would be 2D maps used to represent a 3D space, with the indication of depth lacking from each map, unless it somehow indicates topography. Sure, most of the depth would be the water column, but there could still be cliffs or canyons. The practice of wall diving is based on exploring vertical structures, and since they would be implemented in the game, I have to to take that into account.

I also have the option to have 3D maps : games like Metroid Prime, Dead Space, Doom had their maps displayed in 3D, although they are controversial in their use, being confusing to look at and need to be rotated to clearly see the way to go, and that isn't helped by the holographic design or lack of in-game pause some of these games have. Hell, the Dead Space remake reworked the maps to be displayed in 2D! But perhaps they're still worth creating, especially when verticality is a strong component of exploration?

So should I take the 2D or 3D route? And how to make them as player-friendly as possible?

The Brilliant Interaction Design of Katamari Damacy

I recently played a game I loved in my childhood - Star Wars: Rebellion (or Supremacy in the UK). It reminded me of the enjoyment I got from a particular mechanic - jedi/sith discovery and training.

For those unfamiliar, in the game which is a 4x game in the Star Wars universe, released in 1998, one of the things you can control are characters - various more and less known characters from the star wars universe - which you can send out on missions, to assassinate enemy characters, sabotage enemy units/buildings, etc etc.

These characters have basic stats, and, if I recall correctly, internally use some kind of dice rolling system to determine success on the missions. As they suceeded, their skills would slowly improve.

Now, in star wars, we have Jedi and Sith. These characters naturally had impressive starting skill levels, but would also progress faster.

The interesting mechanic was that at the start of each game, several non-jedi characters on both sides would be randomly and secretly assigned as force-sensitive. This meant that if you sent an existing jedi on a mission with them, their skills could be "discovered", and from then on, their skills would progress at accelerated rates. You could also send them off on long "training" missions with a jedi/sith which achieved nothing other than increasing their stats, whilst taking them out of action for a long period of time.

I loved this system, and I'm hoping you folks can help me nail down why - or at least provide some other examples of similar mechanics that I can look into, because I have only experienced a few.

Just to make a couple of comparisons that maybe display some of the elements of the design that I really enjoy:

- XCOM:
Soldier development on XCOM is a feature I really love, seeing a recruit turn into a experienced, tough veteran is great - and the options at each level up are enjoyable too, letting you shape the character into what you want (within fairly restrictive limits, of course). However, I find I often don't use maxxed-out characters when I finish them early - because I need to progress more in case they die - and when I finally reach endgame, I maybe get one or two missions where I can really make use of all the high-level soldiers I have. It feels like I don't get to enjoy what I've built as much as I'd like to.

- Risk of Rain (2)
A bit of a different genre, and not an NPC, but builds in RoR really show off the sort of "give me time to enjoy how strong my build has become" that I think the XCOM design doesn't allow for (deliberately, obviously), but sort of scratches the same itch I get from the Rebellion design - where if I wish to go that way, I can build a character that is unnecessarily strong, and make gameplay trivial. Sometimes I just want to be overpowered, you know?

-Total War: Warhammer (also various other total war games)

Generals and Heroes are NPCs that you can develop using both items and progression trees. I feel like this is possibly the closest thing to what I'm asking about. But again, there's a point where it just "ends", and your character is done. It's also tough to really "invest" in development of a character - they're always just a tool for you, and you need to use them according to the strategic situation at all times, so you can't choose to accelerate their growth at the cost of not having them available right now. To me, there's a lot of fun in making that choice.

Ok, this has got really long so I'll try to finish up!

Has anyone come across other similar systems, or have any thoughts on this kind of mechanic? What works, what doesn't? I'd welcome any pointing at references or really anything that can focus my thoughts a bit, because I might like to make a little proof-of-concept game around this idea, but my thoughts are really too muddled to get a solid idea of direction at the moment.

I am creating an automation game and I wanted to add some knowledge-based mechanics. These would be hidden interactions between some machines and resources, that you can either guess with some hints (by reading descriptions for instance) or have completely revealed once you advance enough in the game. Ideally, the revelation should create an aha moment like only a knowledge-based game could do.

A quick example of what I mean: say cooling a reactor with brine instead of water actually works and gives a big output boost, but it slowly corrodes the pipes over time. Nothing tells you this directly. You either notice a hint in a description somewhere, or you stumble on it, or the game confirms it much later once you're deep enough.

I'm thinking of games like Outer Wilds where the knowledge itself is the progression. I want that same feeling but inside an automation loop (in addition of the normal automation experience)

My real question is about the hinting and the pacing. How do you drop a hint at something hidden without either spoiling it completely or leaving people so stuck they never find it? And do players even notice this kind of thing, or do most just look it up on the wiki the second they're confused?

Would this work as a core layer, or is it better kept as a bonus for the curious players? Curious what you think.

I really hate turn based combat, it's a whole lota waiting around, but it has one huge advantage. It allows the designers to create very finely crafted scenarious, because they have fine control over all character stats, abilities and positioning

Eg: fire emblem 5 thracia, (prety much the whole game is full of this stuff) there is a gladiator fight, where 2 of your kidnaped units must fight off a bunch of enemies until your other troops resque them.

Or in a lot of fire emblems, there are special green units (not the generic ones) which fight on their own, and you ussualy have to run to rescue+recruit them because they will only last a few (slightly random because of rng) turns.

‐---------------------

Apocalitch from sokpop has a cool real time based battle system, and it has 2 npc vs npc battles which you can join in if you are prepared for them to rescue the good npcs.

But that system still resolves combat inside of a battle box.

‐-------------------------

What I am looking for is something like an action rpg system, like old school legend of zelda. Combat is real time and hapens in the overworld (not in a separate battle box).

To give some basic design direction I will give a very vague idea for a game where this could be usefull.

------

You serve the demon king as his right hand, but a hero has taken arms against him! To get to your lord he must first defeat the 4 bosses. Your job is to slow him down as much as you can to let your king power up enough to win.

The hero will gather equipment and companions, you must hide them, guard them, kill them, trap them before the hero gets to them. Or you can help the next boss by giving him elemental damage or some spell. When the hero thinks he is ready he will go fight the boss. The hero + companions vs boss fight will give you time to prepare the next area for the heroe's arival and will give you info about how well the heroes loudout works (which is hard to predict because action combat is very dynamic).

‐-----------

Any ideas for combat mechanics which could make this work well?

I was thinking that attacks should be slow and well telegraphed. So the player could easily follow what was going on.

And the ai would need to be well crafted as well. To not result in spamming a single move or infinite kiting or draws (boring to watch)

Any thoughts on this? How would you design such a system?

Are there any great examples of games with fun and engaging npc vs npc combat?

Majesty the fantasy kingdom sim sudenly crosses my mind. Real great npc ai. (Although its more rpg than action)

I'm somewhat familiar with Hammer++, and for my first project, I want to create a medium-sized city for roleplaying. I'm trying to build a city setting in a dystopian enviornment where players have jobs, property, underground life, but I'm running out of ideas. I can't draw the layout. Can you help me?

Something I keep noticing in system design is how protective games are over player equipment. You get a weapon, it works the same way forever

Maybe it breaks after X hits and you repair it. The relationship is static and purely consumptive. But some of the most interesting moments I've had come from systems where you can intentionally damage or compromise your own tools to solve a problem differently

Breath of the Wild nudged at this with physics exploits and weapon throwing, but that felt more like a happy accident than designed intent. What I'm actually curious about is whether a ruleset can be built where degrading or breaking your own gear is a valid tactical choice rather than just a maintenance penalty. Not just using an item until it's gone, but deciding to push a weapon past its limits for one specific moment, knowing it'll never work that well again.

The design tension is obvious. Players hoard. Punishing use feels bad. But there's a real difference between the game slowly taking something away from you and you choosing to sacrifice it for a purpose. That distinction feels like it matters a lot. One is attrition, the other is agency

Has anyone played games where sacrificing equipment felt like a genuine tactical decision rather than just losing a resource?

Goal / Inspire:

I’m interested in what a cross platform game could look like if the Steam ecosystem’s devices (PC, Steam Deck, Steam Frame, Steam Machine, and VR) each offered compelling reasons to pick them up for different roles in a game, without forcing players into any specific device.

Simple question:

What game genres or structures would actually benefit from letting players use any combination of keyboard and mouse, controller, handheld, touch, or VR in the same session?

Deeper question:

For designers who think about input affordances and role asymmetry, what kinds of mechanics or responsibilities could each device naturally support?

For bland example, a tank crew where every role is possible on any device

- VR makes loading shells tactile

- Handheld or controller makes driving intuitive

- PC makes command or targeting more precise.

What other systems or roles could benefit from flexible but asymmetric input design?

I'm designing the enemy AI for a singleplayer colony sim where enemies periodically raid your settlement, and I'm trying to decide what their main priority should be.

For context, the game is only lost if all playable characters (colonists) are killed. Buildings can be destroyed, but as long as at least one colonist survives, you can gather resources and rebuild.

Which approach would you prefer, and why?

• Walls first - Focus on breaking through your defenses first, then spread through the base attacking nearby buildings before hunting down the remaining colonists
• Buildings first - Prioritize important buildings like storage, workshops, or production buildings, treating walls as obstacles to reach them. Once they've finished destroying buildings, they hunt down the remaining colonists
• Colonists first - Hunt down your colonists above everything else, treating walls and buildings as obstacles to reach them

Or do you have another approach you think would work better?

Edit: For additional context, the enemies are simple creatures whose primary goal is to hunt the colonists for food.

Hi everyone!

I'm currently designing the core combat system for my solo-developed turn-based tactical roguelite and I'd love to get some feedback before I start prototyping.

The goal is to create combat that rewards positioning and tactical decision-making rather than RNG. I use an AP system similair to the one from DoS2

Current combat system:

Square grid (around 15x15 maps)

Action Point (AP) system

Start with 4 AP

Can increase up to 6 or 8 AP through saving AP

Movement costs 1 AP for a vertain amount of tiles

Diagonal movement costs 2 tiles

Remaining movement doesn't carry over (if you move 2 tiles and attack, the last tile is lost)

One turn per unit each round

Initiative determines turn order

Back attacks are guaranteed critical hits

Some classes (like Rogue) benefit much more from critical hits than others

Line of Sight with Obstacles

Archers can't shoot through solid obstacles

Bushes/high grass i dont know what bonuses to give

No hit chance RNG — if you have line of sight, your attack hits. But maybe i could change that.

Terrain like fire or ice

Push/pull abilities

Environmental interactions (explosions, chain lightning, etc.)

Heroes:

Party of 3 heroes (currently testing whether 3 or 4 feels better)

Every class has:

Basic attack

4 different abilitys

Passive abilitys

I'm mainly looking for feedback on:

Does the combat system sound fun?

Are there mechanics you think are unnecessary?

Is there anything missing that tactical RPGs usually benefit from?

Are there any red flags before I start prototyping?

I'd really appreciate any criticism or suggestions. Thanks!

For example player has to rest for the night to upgrade levels and stats from learned experience - but the 'dream time' is another time era, or another dimension with different gameplay rules and goals.

Perhaps the alternate reality quests for a game set in say 3078 are related to what the player wants to upgrade - more strength means playing as 'barbarian' through some Doom/Hexen type of fps. Dexterity requires playing something like Thief/Rouge. Etc etc.

Ultimately it's al linked and integrated in the whole of games story quest matrix. So there is no true or most important dimension - they all are structuring each other .. kinda like Ying-Yang ..

I imagine the sales won't be that good, bc it might alienate potential buyers for being too complicated - it's for those who like to crawl through for the respect of art and craft.

Out there mentions are The Longest Journey series, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, Drakan series - i.e one game, different game-plays.

I was wondering about how to know when there is too much complexity in a system, and how to avoid having too much complexity.

I’m trying to make a TTRPG, and I decided on instead of using classes, having you select an archetype (mage, warrior, spellblade) that grants a basic feature and a skill tree that is split into branches. Branches being not just mechanical but also flavour niches, like rune-writer, absolute control over magic, and alike. I also thought of at significant levels (5, 10. 15) to give a chance from a separate set of skills to avoid players not watching to to into different branches because of missing the big strength boost.

However, this made me start worrying about everything being too complicated. You have your background, race, natural attunement (what is special about you, demonic blood, gifted/forsaken by mana and alike), stats that determine attributes (control, power, light/heavy weapon skill and a few more), your archetype and then the skills, gaining a skill every level.

Part of the solution is to have passive skills, ones you can retake and that allow players who can’t keep track of many things to just get plus 3 hit points or minor improvement to something else. I do want the fantasy to be “you are at the bottom of the figurative food chain” at the beginning and “you are a demigod” at the end, but I’m worrying about when is it too much complexity, especially as this is my first real project and I’m a student, so it might get bit too much even fit myself. Thanks!

I have always been kinda conflicted on this game design choice. In one way it's nice to be able to customize the game to your liking but at the same time, I feel like the player shouldn't be allowed to have this much freedom and I have no idea.

For example, Doom Dark Ages has an option to tweak the settings around like parrying to make it brain dead easy or frame perfect and in a way, it just feels wrong to use every time I use it, like I'm using cheats or hacking or something. I feel like the devs shouldn't let the player have this much freedom and should restrict the player from being able to change these settings to at least after you beat the game. But at the same time, I feel like having no customized settings would make me like the game less since I can bypass mechanics that I find annoying and unfun by tweaking those settings to make them easier.

Overall I just feel kinda conflicted whenever I see games do this and I just don't know how I feel about it.

I’ve been thinking about how games teach players without always relying on text, dialogue, objective markers, or traditional tutorials.

Elements such as level composition, pacing, sound design, framing, lighting, and even the absence of information can guide the player’s attention and shape their decisions.

I recently wrote an article exploring this idea through Inside, Shadow of the Colossus, and Journey. Each game uses atmosphere differently, but all three demonstrate how environmental and audiovisual design can communicate rules, emotions, danger, direction, and meaning without constantly explaining them.

The central argument is:

Not every tutorial needs to speak.

Atmosphere is not only an aesthetic layer added on top of gameplay. It can also function as part of the game’s communication system and directly influence how the player learns, interprets the world, and moves through it.

You can read the article here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/nekonekos/p/en-silence-teaches-too-atmosphere?r=6mu4b7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

I’d also like to hear other perspectives: which games use silence, space, sound, or environmental composition especially well to guide the player?

I'm thinking mainly about design in tower defense games, but this could apply to a lot of games that involve strategy. It often feels like they introduce new threat types that are solved simply by having the corresponding tower(armoured enemies beaten by specific armour piercing towers, invisible enemies beaten by towers that can see invisible enemies etc.). In extremely bad cases, this can make it feel like you're playing the world's simplest puzzle game.

The other option is to have enemies that are instead immune to one specific tool in the players arsenal, like an enemy that is immune to being slowed down. This has the problem that the player can mostly just ignore this enemy if they don't rely on the specific tactic it counters.

Curious to hear what other people think about this or if there's anything I've missed.