r/gamedesign

I'm looking into an upgrade system for my game, and since its about trains and creating a build with different carriages, I was considering giving each individual carriage a small skill tree. This would mean 10-20 different skill trees. I was thinking this could give the player more autonomy and choices with their upgrades rather than just having a single upgrade button for each carriage.

Even though each carriage would be unlocked one by one through their progression, I'm thinking it may overwhelm the player if progression is too fast?

Do you think this could be a good idea to approach upgrade progression differently?

I'm working on the progression system for a single-player open-world action RPG, and I'm considering removing traditional character levels entirely.

Instead of:

Kill enemies → Gain XP → Level up → Increase stats

I want progression to come primarily from what the player actually does.

For example:

- Frequently using a weapon improves proficiency with that type of weapon.

- Using certain types of combat gradually develops related abilities.

- Using magic develops magic-related capabilities.

- Challenges, accomplishments, and player choices can open new specialization options.

The goal is for the character to gradually become a reflection of how the player actually plays, rather than the player choosing a class and following a predetermined progression path.

There would also be no fixed class at the beginning of the game.

Instead of choosing Warrior, Mage, Ranger, etc., the player's build would emerge naturally through their actions, abilities, accomplishments, and choices.

However, I see several potential problems with this design.

1. How do you prevent optimal grinding?

If players realize that repeatedly performing a certain action improves a specific ability, some will naturally optimize the fun out of the system.

For example, if using a sword improves sword-related capabilities, what prevents someone from repeatedly attacking weak enemies simply because it's the fastest way to improve?

I don't want progression to reward repetition more than meaningful gameplay.

2. How do you make progression feel visible without levels?

A traditional RPG can easily communicate:

Level 10 → Level 11

Without that number, progression might become harder for the player to notice.

Even if the character is becoming stronger mechanically, I think players still need clear moments where they feel:

“My character has changed.”

3. Does full freedom eventually destroy build identity?

If players are allowed to improve everything simply by using everything, then given enough time, every character could eventually become good at everything.

At that point, the idea of building your own character may actually become less meaningful.

So I'm currently thinking there needs to be some form of specialization or diminishing returns without permanently locking players out of other playstyles.

---

The main design question I'm trying to solve is:

How would you design an action-based progression system that rewards natural play, makes growth clearly noticeable, but doesn't encourage repetitive grinding or eventually make every build identical?

I'd especially appreciate examples of games that handled this well — or games where you think this kind of progression failed and why.

I'm looking for criticism more than validation, so feel free to point out flaws in the concept.

When writing branching narratives for a political game, it’s really easy to fall into the trap of making every tough choice feel artificial, where the "correct" path is just hidden behind a speech check or a specific item. In Emindar, we've been trying to lean into scenarios where every available option actually costs you something, and the best you can aim for is damage control. For instance, when a food shortage hits, choosing to appease the traditionalist council alienates the industrial workers, but backing the workers breaks promises made to the old aristocratic houses. For those designing choice-driven or strategy games: how do you balance making players feel the weight of a bad compromise without making them feel like the game is just punishing them unfairly?

Please share information about a game or rules set that you have designed! We have updated the sub rules to encourage self-promotion, but only in this thread.

Finished games, projects you are actively working on, or mods to an existing game are all fine. Links to your game are welcome, as are invitations for others to come help out with the game. Please be clear about what kind of feedback you would like from the community (play-through impressions? pedantic rules lawyering? a full critique?).

Do not post blind links without a description of what they lead to.

I know it's partially to make grinding for progression more universal to make playing catch up easier, but it still feels weird to me

I’ve been having a fascinating debate with my son about modern game design philosophy. Since we represent two different generations of gamers—I grew up in the 70s/80s and designed my last game over 30 years ago when the industry was a completely different world, while he belongs to the modern generation where an endless sea of games means you just drop a title the second it stops being fun—our views on friction and frustration are polar opposites.

To be clear, I'm not looking for someone to design a game for me or hand me a fixed solution! Rather, I’m trying to gain insight into how modern games handle these concepts, what current player expectations look like, and how different generations view these mechanics.

We are currently planning a 2D Jump & Run with Hack & Slash elements. He is heavily inspired by modern precision giants like Hollow Knight (and Silksong), while I draw from classic retro game design.

I understand his perspective—players have choices now, and unnecessary frustration kills retention. However, I struggle with making things too forgiving. I believe a game should offer a genuine, uncompromising challenge, and that certain mechanics (like time pressure or meaningful consequences) are essential.

To give you an idea of how we try to bridge this gap in our design:

• Fall damage & death penalty: I lean toward fall damage from a certain height, and upon death, you must retrieve your dropped items (while keeping core weapons so it doesn't become overwhelmingly punishing).
• Pacing & Anti-Idle: I believe games should apply mild pressure to prevent players from just idling indefinitely instead of pausing, whereas my son prefers absolute freedom without artificial friction.
• Arena waves & pacing: We agreed on a compromise for arena sections: implementing a strict wave and arena cap so active enemies never exceed a designated limit. To prevent stalling, we use a soft-lock timer: if the arena capacity drops below 50% or a specific time elapses, the next wave triggers automatically.
• Level persistence & enemy respawns: We are debating what happens when you quit the game before beating the area boss. If you haven't cleared the boss yet, should defeated standard enemies respawn upon the next game start (forcing you to fight your way through again), or should cleared areas stay cleared to respect the player's progress?

Given the reality of today's market—where attention spans are shorter and the game library is infinite—I wanted to open this up to the community:

• How do you design a 2D action-platformer today that is challenging and respects player time, without falling into the trap of either "unplayable retro frustration" or "instant-gratification boredom"?
• Where is the sweet spot for modern players who love titles like Hollow Knight, but might drop a game if a mechanic feels like a waste of time?

I’m curious to hear how developers and players view this dynamic nowadays.

I'm working through a tutorial design problem for a card-based roguelite: the player picks an action card, then equipped effects can trigger from it. For a concrete example, suppose one choice creates a shield, another effect spends that shield for damage, and that damage triggers a follow-up card. I'd like a new player to be able to predict the result without reading three tooltips before every action.

One option is to introduce those effects one at a time in a short encounter. Another is to give the player a small working combo immediately and highlight each trigger as it fires. The first seems easier to follow, but delays the part that makes the build interesting. The second shows the payoff early, but the player might just see a big damage number without understanding why it happened.

Which approach would you start with, and why? What would you ask a new player after that first encounter to check whether they understood the chain well enough to make their next card choice?