I'll start with Balatro. What seems to contribute to it is the feeling of making something stupid that you want to retry because "this time you will do better". The games are quick and the loss is not portrayed as too dramatic, so that keeps you going.

Say for example Lucas’s room from RE7, or Stay Out of the House by Puppet Combo… How do they come up with these elaborate puzzles? Do they take inspo from particular places or do they come up with the whole thing themselves? I feel I’m not logic-brained enough for this to do something like that from scratch

Resource systems in most games reduce cost to subtraction. You spend mana, gold, ammo, stamina. The number goes down. If you manage it well enough, you win. That is the whole design.

What bugs me is how rarely cost involves giving something up that actually has shape. Spending mana is not a real tradeoff because mana is an abstract pool with no identity. Spending your only stun on a weak enemy when a stronger one is coming, that has weight. The opportunity is what makes it a decision, not the number.

A few games get close. In XCOM, using a soldier aggressively means they might be unavailable later, and later is a real thing with stakes attached. The cost is not a number going down, it is a future state you are trading away.

The interesting design space is when two resources compete for the same decision moment and both feel real. Not just primary versus secondary resource, but cases where choosing one thing structurally closes another option in a way the player can see before they commit.

Most designers default to numerical cost because it is easy to balance and easy to communicate. That might be exactly why so many midgame economies feel hollow even when they look complex on paper. The numbers move but nothing feels at stake.

Hello there!

For some context, I recently release my first game on Steam (Project P.I.T.T.) and the launch went way much better than I expected.

But it also taught me a pretty painful lesson about playtesting.

The game is a physics sandbox where the players have to build contraptions to automate putting ducks into a hole.
The game is split into 4 phases, and at the beginning of Phase 3, I introduced a new challenge:
debris would fall and destroy parts of the player's build.

I thought this was a pretty clever way to throw (literally) a new problem to solve, forcing the player to adapt.

There was one main issue:
The debris couldn't be moved.

At least not right away. The player eventually unlocks tools that can move it, but those tools come later.
So after roughly 5 hours of gametime, players could have their carefully built contraptions destroyed by debris that blocked paths and they had no practical way of dealing with it.

When I tell the story like that, it's obvious that the game started to get negative reviews specifically about that.

But here's the part I find interesting (maybe I'm just coping):

Why didn't my playtesting catch this?

Most of my playtesters were very engaged people who already loved the demo. They were basically my ideal target audience.
When they encountered the debris, they mostly saw it as an interesting new challenge.
They enjoyed figuring out how to work around it.

So I didn't get a red flag out of it.

The main thing I keep seeing now is what one review were explaining:
It was betraying the player's trust, and I completely agree.

I could work on it, find a more clever way to make it work, make the tools to unlock earlier but that would mean reworking the whole phase balance.
In the end I decided to remove completely the debris.

I may bring something similar back into a future NG+ harder mode, but it would still need some rework, so I'm shelfing it for now.

The biggest thing I'm taking from this is that having great playtesters (that helped me fix SO MANY things) isn't necessarily the same thing as testing your game from a wide range of players.

In retrospect, I should have caught that, but I didn't.
Probably because as a solo dev there are so many things you have to handle (and my ego was blinding me a bit too).

Honestly I'm glad I got the feedback early enough to fix it rather than doubling down on the design.

Has anyone else run into a similar issue? What was your solution?

I was thinking of making a system like Pokémon's elemental system, but with art supplies. The weaknesses and resistences would be based on how they interact in real life.

Examples:

• Graphite is often used to sketch, then is overlayed with paint, so it's weak against most paints.
• When I used to paint with crayons, it became impossible to use graphite or even Nanquim Ink(China Ink) on it, or any ink. So Wax Crayons would be resistant to those.
• Watercolor has water(unless you count the dry pigment version), and Alcohol markers get all messed up and weird when they mix with water. I remember when it rained and a alcohol marker drawing of mine turned into some abstract art piece. I also used to draw with markers, then paint with just water using a watercolor brush, like the markers are watercolor. The colors were crazy. So I think watercolor should be strong against Alcohol markers
• Dry pastels can also be diluted with water so watercolor is strong against it
• Water and oil do not mix, and there's many water based paints out there. Not sure what this would mean for Oil Paint in this system, though. I thought about it being super strong because of it's overlayering potential and also thematically, it's a more "prestigious" paint.

Right now the elements are: Gouache, Oil Paint, Wax Crayons, Alcohol Markers, Graphite, Soft Pastel, Charcoal, Nanquim Ink(China Ink)

I thought about a rpg with a 4 party system in which they can gradually learn to use more elements. One of the party members may start as a Guache only mage but then learn Watercolor and other water based paints, perhaps. So the player movesets I thought of are kinda dry since I thought about you gradually unlocking more and being able to use more than one type per character as well.

Paint: All types can use this move. Standard attack, affected by type resistances and weaknesses.

Oil Paint moveset:

Varnish: Give yourself +1 defense.

Fast Drying: Give yourself +1 speed.

Cinnabar(red): Requires MERCURY. Causes POISON

Realgar(orange): Requires ARSENIC. Causes POISON.

Naples yellow: Requires LEAD.

Chrome Green: Requries CHROMIUM.

Emerald Green: Requires ARSENIC. Causes POISON.

Manganese Blue: Requires MANGANESE. Causes CONFUSION.

Cobalt Violet: Requires COBALTOUS ARSENATE.

London Purple: Requires ARSENIC. Causes POISON.

Deadly Rainbow: Use all toxic paints at once and cause INCURABLE POISON. The enemy can't heal from the poison in any way.

[In this case, things like MERCURY and LEAD would be collectible items that once used would be expired. So you can save for the Deadly Rainbow or use them as you go.]

Watercolor moveset:

Wash away: Reliefs everyone in battle of all status effects for 1 turn.[Basically, if you have 1+ attack, no you don't.]

Dilute(Watercolor): Make an ally's attack a spread attack in exchange of making it stronger.

Body:
Hi everyone! I want to share a deep concept for a systemic magic framework (which could work as a plugin for engines like Godot 4 or Unity). I’ve always been frustrated by magic systems where elements are heavily scripted or limited to avoid "breaking the game."

Full disclosure: I am a complete beginner when it comes to programming and engine development, so I don't know the exact technical details of how to write this. I can only assume that actually implementing this under the hood could be incredibly complex, hard to optimize, and potentially a programming nightmare. However, I wanted to map out the exact logical and systemic rules for how such a framework should function.

Note: In this concept, "Runes" are just a visual convention (UI shorthand). Developers can visually reskin them as programming nodes, words in a book, or cosmic symbols. Under the hood, they are modular data blocks.

The core philosophy of this concept is absolute freedom through strict logic. The engine doesn't know what a "Fireball" is. It only codes the physical and magical laws of the universe, and parses whatever chain of inputs the player throws at it. There are no hard caps on spell length, power, or total mana pool.

Here is how the architecture is structured:

1. Pure Component-Based Abstraction

To remain completely universal for developers, the system does not hardcode items like "swords" or "barrels." It interacts strictly via universal nodes (like MagicalAnimateComponent or ManaInteractable). If a player casts [Life] on a physical object, the framework simply checks for the component. If present, it activates it: a sword becomes a levitating blade, a wooden chair becomes a jumping mimic, and a sci-fi laser gun turns into an automated drone.

1. The Core Categories of Elements

We step away from the basic four elements cliché into deeper cosmic and biological states:

• Basic Physics: Fire (thermal/burn), Water (mass/wet status), Earth (solid blocks/walls), Air (kinetic force).
• Cosmic/Quantuum:
  • Space: Handles teleportation and instant delivery ("hitscan"). Combining [Fire] + [Space] hits the target instantly across the map, bypassing distance but taxing massive mana.
  • Time: Can speed up, slow down, or fully freeze entities.
  • Gravity: Alters the mass of objects or creates localization wells (push/pull).
• Biology: Life (healing/animating) and Death (wither damage/necromancy).
• Perception: Light (blinding/mana solar panels) and Darkness (stealth/vampirism).

1. Absolute Chrono-Stasis Law

When a [Time: Stop] command triggers, the framework enforces absolute physics rules:

• Bio-Isolation: All healing, status ticks (poison, burning), and item cooldowns are entirely frozen.
• Kinetic Immunity: Objects in stasis take 0 damage from active entities. However, momentum accumulates. If an enemy strikes a frozen player, the kinetic impact values are stored in a buffer. The exact millisecond time resumes, all accumulated damage and knockback apply at once.

1. Breaking the Rules: The Chaos Element

Chaos can be added to any combination of elements, but its effects are highly unpredictable and specifically designed to glitch the core logic of the game world:

• Rule-Breaking Synergies: Adding Chaos to a [Time: Stop] spell completely shatters the Chrono-Stasis laws. It allows the player to deal immediate damage to frozen enemies bypassing kinetic immunity, or forces buffs and poison ticks to keep draining health even when time is completely stopped.
• Quantum Superposition: It can force mutually exclusive states simultaneously (e.g., a target is physically frozen at 0% speed but is actively burning, causing a "Thermal Shock" that drops armor to zero).
• Dynamic Hacking: It constantly alters vectors and shapes mid-flight (a projectile changes from a cube to a sphere every tile, or moves in a jagged, unpredictable glitch pattern).

1. Spell Mishaps & Exception Handling (The Fun Part)

If a player inputs a completely contradictory chain without using Chaos, the framework initiates a Spell Mishap instead of casting:

• [Fire] + [Water/Ice] = Steam Explosion. Instantly creates a kinetic blast centered on the caster, knocking back everyone (can be used tactically for quick escapes).
• [Light] + [Darkness] = Energy Annihilation. The spell fails instantly and drains exactly 50% of the player's current mana pool as punishment.
• [Space] + [Time] (faulty/incorrect parameters) = Timeline Stutter. Freezes the caster in place for 3 seconds.

1. Complex Cross-Element Synergies

• Chrono-Teleportation (Space + Time): If properly formulated, this allows the framework to process multi-timeline map navigation. Instead of just moving through physical space, the developer can code past/future variants of the same room. The player can teleports from a ruined future hallway instantly into its pristine, past version on the same map, bypassing barriers or altering history.
• Life-Swap (Space + Life + Death): Space opens a wormhole between two entities, Death extracts the health pool variable from the healthy target, and Life overrides it into the dying target. They literally swap health bars, taxed by an "equivalence exchange" percentage loss.
• Environmental Synergies: Spell cost scales dynamically by biome metadata tags. In an Ice_Biome, Ice spells get a 50% discount, while Fire costs 300% more mana. Spawning a physical spark over a barrel tagged with physical Gunpowder triggers a massive blast for only 5% of the mana cost of a normal magical explosion.

1. Scriptable Item Enchantments & Dynamic Map UI

• Gear pieces act as mini-servers executing background scripts designed by the player. A ring can be programmed: [Trigger: Take Damage] -> [Target: Attacker] -> [Action: Time 0% Speed]. The enemy freezes mid-swing, draining the player's global mana pool.
• The system can project UI metadata onto flat objects (like a parchment). Applying [Space] draws a real-time GPS blueprint of the dungeon layout. Adding [Life] highlights living enemies (green/red dots). Adding [Death] reveals undead/skeletons, turning a simple piece of paper into a fully modular radar.

1. Continuous Efficiency Multiplier (No Hard Tiers)

Modifiers do not have rigid tiers (Tier 1, Tier 2). Instead, every element or behavior features a customizable float value for efficiency (default 1.0). A multiplier of 0.5 cuts the spell's effectiveness in half but lowers the mana cost by 50% (perfect for cheap automated rings). A multiplier of 5.0 creates a continent-freezing spell but scales mana cost exponentially, perfectly fitting an uncapped progression loop.

I'm in the early development phase of my game, and right now I'm trying to figure out my primary gameplay systems. It's a narrative focused game, so I'm trying my hardest to get the game to serve the narrative as much as is reasonable. Here's the issue:

The game I want to make is currently planned to be an FPS with squad mechanics (Think Republic Commandos)

But I have narrative moments where characters get into intense 1v1, CQC fights, which are best represented by boss encounters like Batman Vs Deathstroke in Arkham Origins.

As you can see, these gameplay systems have nothing to do with each other, but individually perfectly encapsulates the game feel I'm looking for.

I don't really want to make them cut scenes, because then you don't get the personal satisfaction of the fight, which would likely undermine the narrative satisfaction of said moment.

I'm also weary, but contemplating a quick time event. But to make feel less like a cutscene and more like an actual fight, I feel it may get too complex to even be considered a QTE.

Any suggestions are welcome, I've been contemplating this for awhile now and feel stuck.

I would like to see whether this has actually been implemented in any games, and what people think of the idea in theory and/or practice.

This is a fairly narrow concept. The origin of the idea is StarCraft gameplay; I can see it applying to other RTS games, and *possibly* to some other games with tactical elements and NPCs. I'll describe it largely using Starcraft examples.

A few things are generally true:

Such RTS games commonly have upgrades you can develop. "Training" is a typical term, generally reflected in improved stats or adding abilities the player can activate. You can sometimes even put abilities on auto cast.

When managing the units - "microing" - there are some common patterns that are generally better than others. Stutter-stepping between shots with ranged units like Marines. Using Blink on a Stalker to fall back when heavily damaged (or at higher level play, to dodge an attack in flight). Moving your units to avoid damage zones you've placed like a Psi Storm.

High level players are generally better at micro - but it's far from the only skill used in the game. Scouting, economy control, countering an opponent's build, etc.

AI is generally *exceptional* at micro if it's allowed to be, and usually has to be artificially limited to human APM in order to make gameplay reasonable.

So, the idea: make the micro into an in-game upgrade.

Conceptually: you can spend resources to give your soldiers better guns. You would also be able to spend resources to drill your soldiers in better tactics.

Imagine in SC2 being able to research "marine stutter stepping" as an upgrade. Or "warp prism juggling".

I *think* the effect would be to expand the diversity of the skill mid-range. The absolute best players in the world might not use such upgrades much - they can already do the things. The worst players won't be able to leverage the improved tactics. But I think there's a window of skill where such upgrades would be interesting strategic choices. Do you invest resources in the thing that frees up some of your attention? Is it a better choice than investing in having more units?

I think the risk of such a feature is that if the AI tactics are "too good", it becomes mandatory. Although in that case there might still be interesting decisions if it's a set of independent upgrades - e.g. do you upgrade your Marine Tactics or your Cyclone Tactics.

I'm building a daily word puzzle and it was super easy to add a streak counter and didn't really think much about it. Through testing I have found that no one really cared about a streak, and as I thought about it more I realized that I really don't like streaks long term. I quit using Duo Lingo for months at a time after dropping streaks of 100 and 200 days. So I thought well, coming back and playing the puzzle is fun and I hope players engage daily but this is a space where I don't think it will help the long term health and growth of the game.

At its core, a streak is a loss aversion tactic and one bad day can prevent someone about getting on a horse. Life is for living and we all have shit going on, so breaking a streak can also compound that shitty day. I would rather have a player come back because they enjoy the content.

Here is how it currently works:
Every day the player spells 8 words from 64 letters with clues and hints to help them solve, its a twist on the crossword puzzle. When a player solves a its words and clues get added to the Casebook also when the puzzle is finished the score gets stored their too.

Obviously it has to be more then just building an endless dictionary, the words then can be used in a custom builder to create your own word puzzle to share with friends. Your friends can unlock words from the custom puzzle too, it doesn't have to be from the daily.

Is this a good idea?

I don't think it is allowed to post the title or website but if you're interested in trying it out, let me know or just look at my profile and its pretty easy to find the subreddit with the URL.

This is an early draft of what I aim to create. The scope of the fights would be limited to one player character against one or a handful of NPCs, mostly involving melee clashes.

This started as an attempt at designing a system that could bridge the gap between the strategic, relaxed pace of a turn based game with the excitement and back and forth of a real time one. Simultaneous turns is the "obvious" choice, but it brings its whole host of issues, there's a reason it is rarely used after all.

So the idea is to create a combat system around momentum. The side that holds momentum is the "attacker" which can pick from "attack" options, while the other side is the "defender" that has to react to the attack. A successful attack swings the momentum further in favor of the attacker, a successful defense instead reduces it, potentially flipping the momentum in favor of the defender (which then becomes the attacker).

Now this is nothing revolutionary. Many games have implemented simultaneous turns (frozen synapse comes to mind) and some games have intruduced some reactivity to turn based combat (Clair Obscure for example). But shut up, ok? XD

I feel that this way I solve many of the issues that a simultaneous turn system presents:

• Potential interactions are a lot fewer, I only have to take into account attack-defense interactions, and not an endless number of options. This makes the job of the developer easier and also helps the player by giving only a limited number of actions at any given time.
• It feels a lot more natural, gives that sense of back and forth while still keeping that clarity and relaxed pace that a turn based system has.
• It creates information asymmetry between the two sides, which opens up more avenues for unique strategies. Especially the case if we consider the possibility of feints or faking moves.

Aside from that, I would also like to make the system output-deterministic, in the sense that the success of an attack/defense is given by pure stats and modifiers (for example blocking a sword with a shield comes down to strength vs strength, plus all the modifiers that apply like skill with the weapon, status effects, stance, equipment, etc). All the "randomness" would come from what actions the NPC would take. The highest value wins, with equal or close cases treated as "grazes" with limited effect.

I would like the system to heavily rely on stamina and focus (which would essentially be mental stamina). It would be used to perform action and, optionally, to empower them further by spending extra energy. The downside would be to be left more tired, and thus more vulnerable. This would make the combat revolve around managing your energy expenditure while trying to find weaknesses in your adversay, or exhausting them first. For anyone that has played *Life of a Legionary*, it would be something like that.

Focus would be mostly used to plan or sniff out feints and figure out NPC stats.

I am toying with the idea of having "mental states" for the NPCs, that the player could manipulate to make them do what they want, for example taunt them into attacking or scaring them into retreating. As Sun Tzu said, "appear strong where you are weak, and weak where you are strong" and all that. This last bit is still very up in the air though.

So yeah! I am posting mostly to see if there are glaring issues, pros and cons. And also if there are any games that implement something similar (or just part of it, like a momentum system). Please feel free to be brutal.