Tom Vasel's "Vasel's Law" essentially says if a game is truly great, then it will get reprinted again or its mechanics will inspire a similar game in the future. What are your thoughts on this?
Hi everyone,
I’m the graphic and 3D designer working on The Four Kingdoms of Eldoria .We’ve been developing the game for almost four years now, and a big part of my task has been trying to make everything feel rich and atmospheric without making the table too busy or hard to read.
That’s probably been one of the trickiest parts for me to finding the right balance between fantasy style and clear gameplay information.
I’m sharing some of the current visuals here and would really appreciate some honest feedback from other designers.
Happy to hear any criticism, it all helps.
I'm new to Reddit and ... I accidentally deleted my previous post so sorry if this looks like a repost 😂
Hey everyone,
I’ve realized recently that the current trend of "cozy" engine builders and multiplayer-solitaire games just isn't for me. I really miss the constant, highly interactive tension of RTS video games like Starcraft or Age of Empires.
In a classic RTS, your ideal move entirely depends on reading your opponents:
I wanted to capture this exact dilemma in an area control game I'm currently designing (a Viking-themed game called Nyrheim). I wanted a cutthroat, highly interactive game, but in a plannable "Euro" style. However, I ran into a few major design challenges along the way:
1. The "Fog of War" Problem In an RTS, you never see exactly what the other person is doing. In a board game, perfect information can lead to heavy analysis paralysis. My current solution: Multi-use hand cards. You can either use them for their printed effect, or chop them up to use them as hidden money for wild card actions or combat. You never quite know what tricks your opponent is holding back.
2. The Combat/Luck Problem I wanted combat front and center, but I absolutely hate when a 20-minute strategic setup is ruined by a bad dice roll. My current solution: A blind bidding "power poker" system using coins and combat cards. The twist: The winner gets the region and trophies, but the loser gets the money that the winner put into the fight. This created some crazy mind games in playtesting. Sometimes players bid absolutely nothing just to intentionally lose, grab the consolation money, and gain a trophy (thanks to a specific card effect).
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this: What are your favorite ways to implement high player interaction and combat without relying on the chaos of dice? How do you keep combat from feeling too punishing for the loser in your designs?
P.S. If you are interested in the visual breakdown of these mechanics or how this prototype evolved from a clunky space game into its current state, I actually just started a devlog on YouTube and made a video about this exact topic. You can check it out here if you like:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIC2LFKFtsM
The art is Ai, but it's not going to be the finished product. I'm going to put it on Kickstart to help pay for artists.
What do you think?
My wife and I designed Street Food Shuffle, a card-drafting party game about Indian street food: you build dishes while sabotaging your friends and stealing their cards. 68 cards, 2-6 players, 20-40 minutes. We playtested it with 100+ players and it's now live on DriveThruCards as print on demand.
POD got us to market, but the per-unit cost makes wholesale and retail pricing hard, and discovery on DriveThru is limited. The plan is a proper print run from a US printer and selling on Amazon (likely FBA).
Would love to hear from anyone who has made this jump:
Printers: which US card game printers have you used, or would avoid? What minimum orders, per-unit costs and lead times were realistic for a single-deck game with a tuck box?
Publishers and distributors: are any open to small indie card games? Did licensing or self-publishing work better for you?
Amazon: anything you wish you'd known before listing a game there (FBA fees, barcodes, brand registry, returns)?
Finding all of the above: directories, conventions or communities that actually helped?
Happy to share what we learned from 100+ playtests in return, especially about reading the table when you have no data.
(Game page for context: https://streetfoodshuffle.online/)
Black & Red
A game of facing, formation, and the slow grind of income across a field of octagons.
Black and Red face each other on a 16×16 board of octagons. Between every four octagons sits a diamond gap that never holds a piece. Facing is law. Formation does not absorb a blow — it forbids the blow entirely. Income is earned, spent, and sometimes deliberately thrown away. The match ends by the Tower, by the land, by stillness, or by sand.
I. The Board
The field is a 16×16 grid of octagons. Columns and rows are numbered 0–15. Row 0 is Black’s home edge; row 15 is Red’s. Coordinates are always absolute.
During play the board faces the player whose turn it is. Their home edge sits nearest them.
II. Arrangement
Black places first. Each side begins with one Tower and two Workmen. Everything else is bought later.
On your home row place, in order: Tower, Workman, Workman.
The Tower must face its home direction (North for Black, South for Red) and can never face otherwise. Each Workman may face any of the four directions when placed. Once Red’s second Workman is down, Black’s first Deploy begins.
III. The Turn
Every turn has two phases in order: **Deploy**, then **Move / Attack**. Either phase can be ended early. The entire turn can be passed.
- A piece placed this turn is new-born. It cannot turn, march, or strike until your next turn.
- During Move a piece may March or Strike, and may also Turn — in either order — or do only one of those actions.
- A Strike is simply a march onto an enemy cell. You cannot both move into empty space and strike on the same turn.
- Once a piece has used everything it is allowed to do, it is spent for the rest of the turn.
IV. The Roster
Reserve is the hard cap on how many of that type you may ever have (on the board plus still in reserve). No more than three Workmen may stand at once.
Workman (W) — Cost 4 · March 2 facing only · Cannot strike · Reserve 3
Swordsman (S) — Cost 3 · March 2 facing only · Strike 1 step facing only · Reserve 6
Spearman (R) — Cost 6 · March 2 forward cone · Strike forward + two front diagonals · Reserve 3
Horseman (H) — Cost 8 · March 6 facing only · Strike 1 step facing only · Reserve 3
Frontman (F) — Cost 10 · March 2 facing only · Strike forward orthogonal, ignores cover · Reserve 3
Leadman (L) — Cost 12 · March 6 forward cone · Strike forward + two front diagonals, links cover · Reserve 1
Tower (T) — Cannot move or strike · Reserve 1
March range applies only to empty octagons. Every capture is a one-step melee onto the target’s cell. There is no ranged fire.
V. March & Facing
Orthogonal pieces (Workman, Swordsman, Horseman, Frontman) advance only the way they currently face, up to their range, through empty cells.
Cone pieces (Spearman, Leadman) advance forward and along the two front diagonals. Turning swings the entire cone.
VI. Formation
Cover does not soak damage. A protected approach is simply illegal — the strike never lands. An unprotected piece is taken in a single step.
Shield-mates
A neighbor is a shield-mate when it is friendly, not a Tower, faces exactly the same direction as you, and either:
- is the same type as you, or
- a Leadman is binding the two of you.
Two unlike friends that both touch a same-facing Leadman also cover each other. Towers neither give nor receive cover. A neighbor facing a different way is not part of the group.
When the strike is refused
- A shield-mate sitting on the octagon toward the attacker closes that incoming arc.
- A shield-mate on your left or right (relative to your facing) closes front and rear orthogonal strikes.
- A shield-mate on a flank closes the diagonal on that same side.
- An open flank and the far diagonal of a line remain open.
Frontmen ignore all cover when they strike. They have no private defense of their own.
A piece with no shield-mate (or no same-facing friend at all) is stranded. Its capture is marked ^s in the log.
VII. Deploy & Income
Only veteran Workmen generate income. A Workman placed this turn waits until the next turn. Each veteran may draw once per Deploy: a fresh 2d6 that becomes the bead pool.
Drawing again discards every unspent bead and replaces the pool with the new roll.
(Optional reform economy: choose Reform 1d6 at the start. Income becomes a single d6 and costs become S2 · W2 · R3 · H4 · F5 · L6. Reserve caps stay the same.)
Legal ground for deployment
- Any empty octagon beside a healthy friend (a friend that does not touch an enemy by edge or by gap), or
- Your home row, unless that cell is corrupt or the enemy alone claims it.
A unit that touches an enemy is corrupt and cannot open its own eight deploy routes, though a healthy friend may still drop into those cells through their own routes. Quarantine never removes the cell from your territory total.
VIII. Territory & Gaps
A unit owns its own octagon and the eight around it, except where another piece already stands. Occupied cells belong only to the occupant.
Empty cells on your home row count for you unless the enemy neighbors them and you do not.
When both sides’ radii reach the same empty octagon, it counts in both totals (shown as shared).
Gaps take color only from the four octagons that touch them: solid Black, solid Red, or split when both sides occupy that 2×2.
IX. How a Game Ends
C! Collapse — The enemy Tower is destroyed.
T! Domination — Both sides pass a full turn without acting. Higher territory wins. Equal totals continue play.
I! Immobilization — The opponent has no legal action on their turn (or resigns).
An hourglass emptied on your own turn is a loss by sand.
X. The Hourglass
Each player keeps one glass for the entire match. Sand falls only on your turn. No increment. Menu options: 30, 45, 60, or 90 minutes.
XI. Notation (for sharing games)
One action per line.
P1 / P2 — that player’s turn begins
R[4+3=7] — income roll
R_FORFEIT — pool thrown away to draw again
D S(3,1)N — deploy Swordsman at (3,1) facing North
> — Deploy closed, Move begins
S(3,1)-(3,3) — march
H(5,2)>E — turn to face East
R(5,4)xW(6,5) — melee (append ^s if the target was stranded)
SKIP — turn passed
C! P1 wins — result (same form for T! and I!)
That is the whole game.
And that made me think about what I actually love about games, what I want to take from other styles of play, and what all of that means for future Golem Productions designs.
So, hear me ramble of where I think we might go and tell me what you like about our niche.
I have a question for discussion. Regarding the iconography in the game. I’ve started experimenting a bit with turning the card text into icons, but I’m actually not sure where this is going yet.
I’m attaching two images: one shows the icons only, while the other shows the original text version of the card.
Do you think the icons add to cognitive load and make the game harder to learn, or do they improve readability once you understand them?
As far as the first few plays are concerned, the learning barrier is definitely higher with the icons, since players would need to consult a player aid. I wouldn’t want to make the game inaccessible or turn it into too much of a brain burner.
I'm designing a 2-player tactical skirmish game and I'd love some outside feedback on the core card pool
I've been developing a tabletop game called Battle for the Overlord Crown.
The main game is a 2-player competitive 3v3 tactical battle on a 26 × 22-space board.
The basic idea is:
- Each player chooses 3 Heroes.
- Players fight each other while the battlefield changes through Environment Cards.
- After both players take their turns, the Overlord system introduces an AI-controlled threat.
- A Boss can enter the game after the second Hero defeat.
- Players can win by eliminating all opposing Heroes or capturing the Crown and bringing it back to their Spawn Zone.
I'm also planning Solo, 2-player Co-op, 3-player, and 4-player modes, but the 2-player competitive Main Mode is the priority right now.
Current Heroes
🦈 Mako
🐜 Kheit
🐺 Vargr
🐺 Varg
🪲 Korovulk
🐊 Sobek
🕸️ Retiarius
7 Heroes total
Current Environment Cards
🌊 Whirlpool ×3
📦 Crates ×3
🌊 Rivers ×4
🌀 Portals ×2
🧪 Mana/HP Potion Shelf ×1
🏹 Ballista ×1
💣 Cannon ×1
15 Environment Cards total
The Environment deck is designed to change movement, line of sight, positioning, resources, and combat.
Current Normal Overlords
👹 Rock Golem ×2
🔥 Flame Sprite ×2
☠️ Acid Pit ×2
🏹 Undead Elven Archer ×2
💀 Skeleton Knight ×2
🦴 Bone Pile ×1
🐺 Caged Beast ×1
🎯 Bounty Hunter ×2
👁️ Four-Arm Cyclops ×2
❄️ Ice Sprite ×2
🌳 Brute Sprite ×2
👑 Crown Snatcher ×2
🗡️ Dark Assassin ×2
🗡️ Skeleton Spearman ×2
🟢 Slime Warrior ×2
🪽 Flying Imp ×2
☠️ Poison Praying Mantis ×2
🧙 Witch ×2
34 currently named Normal Overlord Cards
Small Slimes are spawned by Slime Warriors rather than having their own card.
I originally planned 36 Normal Overlord Cards, so I currently have two slots open rather than forcing two more monsters into the game just to fill the number.
Bosses
💀 Skeleton King
⚔️ Overlord's Champion
🟢 Slime King
❄️ Ice Giant
4 Boss Cards
The Slime King is a special 2×2 Boss, so it actually occupies four board spaces.
Two new Environment ideas I'm considering
🌿 Vine Wall
A 4-space straight wall that blocks movement and Line of Sight. It can't be damaged normally and can only be destroyed by Fire/Burning effects.
🌲 Enchanted Forest
Provides 4 Trees and 2 Mushrooms that are placed within one of the four sections of the board. The Mushroom effect is still being designed.
These two aren't locked into the core deck yet.
What I'm trying to figure out
Is this enough content for a core tabletop game?
I'm especially interested in feedback from people who play tactical skirmish games, dungeon crawlers, board games with AI enemies, or asymmetric PvE systems.
Some things I'm wondering:
Does 7 Heroes feel like enough variety for a core box?
Is 15 Environment Cards enough for replayability?
Does the current Overlord variety look broad enough?
Is 4 Bosses enough for a core game?
Would you add more cards, or focus on testing the existing pool first?
For the Solo/Co-op modes, would you rather see more enemy variety or more scenario/objective variety?
I'm still in the development and physical prototype stage, so I'm looking for honest criticism, especially things that might become problems after 20, 50, or 100 games.
I don't want to add cards just for the sake of having a bigger box. I'd rather have a smaller core set where every card actually has a purpose.
Thanks to anyone willing to take a look and give feedback.
Hey everyone! I am currently working on a game called Relive, I am sure some of you have seen my posts recently. I know these are very treacherous waters we are traversing. I wanted to know if there were any people in here that would be keen to join a discord chat where we can all share our trials and tribulations. The main reason for it would be to share advice with eachother if we are all working on something similar at the same time or even if we are stuck and just need some general advice. I think this would be good for people who are in the early to mid stage of their games journey. Obviously to join you would need to have a game in the progress.
I hope mods are ok with this but if not fair enough. Let me know if you would be keen and we can chat in DMs
Hello everyone,
I have entered a game design contest with a game of mine (game page). After some blind playtesting, some of the feedback was that rulebook read more as reference guide rather than the rulebook.
So, I have started working on new rulebook and would like to get some feedback on it, if new players are actually capable of learning the game easier with new structure.
Here is the link to the old rukebook.
There is still a lot of work to be done on new rulebook.
I would be very gratefull for your feedback!
P.S. If you whish to try the game out, there are PnP files and link to screentop online version on the game page. It would help me s lot if you could try it and give feedback on it!
Hi everyone,
I’ve been developing my first tabletop game, Hell in the Cell, on and off for quite a while, and I’ve finally reached the point where the first complete playable prototype is finished and ready to go to print for further playtesting.
It's a 2-10 player, ~90-minute, mid-complexity prison survival strategy game where players play as themselves, falsely imprisoned together in an overcrowded American megajail.
The central idea is that you have to become increasingly criminal to survive - developing Prison Skills, managing Contraband, navigating Drug Addictions and psychotic Meltdowns, and screwing with your cellmates along the way. The catch is that everything helping you survive can later become another reason to keep you locked up - as every criminal element against your Record carries specific +/- score values that make up your total score.
On Parole Day, everything against your Inmate Record contributes to your Final Score. The lowest-scoring Inmate gets released as the apparent ‘least threat to society’, regardless of how they may have actually conducted themselves throughout the course of the game, whether by choice, force or serendipity.
It’s deliberately dark, adult satire where the humour comes from watching whoever's playing become increasingly ridiculous hardened criminals under the pressures of a broken system, before that same system harshly judges them for it. The comedy element and laughs are compatible to Cards Against Humanity.
I've put together the attached ‘Cell' sheet (sell sheet) as a one-page overview of the game. I'd really value some fresh eyes on it. Can you understand the premise, what players actually do (based on the level of detail provided), and how you win? Is there anything important that's unclear or missing? Keen to get feedback!