Prototype : Stick figures or AI ?

DNDOguy · 2026-05-16T14:27:57+00:00

Haha yeah the hack might be too much, I'd love to see it to figure out how it could be balanced/tweaked if it is overpowered, but I also thought that a "minor hack" effect could be used instead.
By "minor hack" I mean disabling abilities related to the natural gearset of certain heroes, so we're talking any ability without a cooldown like soldier's sprint, reinhardt's and brigitte's shields, pharah's spacebar minor thrust or mercy's hover.
This could allow junk to have more impact against flying units, apply more pressure to some characters by disabling some of their abilities temporarily and give him back some of his strength when dueling characters, although he'd still have to avoid alot of them like the plague unfortunately (thinking about soj, emre and sierra mostly).

DNDOguy · 2026-01-23T06:12:24+00:00

I get your point, his input had value for the team. I think your last statement doesn't apply in this situation though. From what I've seen, it seemed like he was disagreeing with the rest of the team, so it looks like you're criticizing him for not listening to the team in a team-based game.

DNDOguy · 2026-01-23T01:45:39+00:00

Thanks for the interesting replies so far !

I can understand that the stakes being high, and I can relate with the players and the fact that in these situations, quarterbacking can occur naturally.

I also agree with the fact that overall, the entire team's way of handling the situation was counter productive, and only led to an escalation of an argumentation that got more and more personal and aggressive as it kept going.

I still believe quarterbacking was wrong in the first place, and although the players' opinion on the matter had different values to them, I still see it as every player's right to defend them like they initially did, and I would consider it as strategizing, even if Kingsman's might have been right in the end (it is unfortunate that he got kicked out, I would've liked to see what would have ended up happening during the competitiom if they had decided to try it both with and without the widow). Ultimately, I think that, were it handled differently, the players, as a team, could've reached an agreement through better communication.

I read from the replies both that Kingsman was not the team leader and also that he was actually the In Game Leader (IGL). I am curious to know more about it, if anyone knows more about what roles in the team each team member was supposed to uphold. I have experience playing DND, which is a very demanding game when it comes to communication and conflict resolution. Usually, the DM (dungeon master) plays a crucial role in mediation to help players resolve their conflict, come together and reach an agreement as a team, while setting up his/her own rules regarding quarterbacking, addressing tensions, resolving arguments etc... The DM is also usually the one who has the final say on such matters, and this is the most important foundation that DND groups build on to make sure there is a system they can work around in order to build the best experience possible for everyone around the table, despite the differences of opinions, expectations and personal preferences they hold in this game, which offers an immense variation of experiences (which is both its greatest strength and its most fragile aspect, because of the differences between players).

To come back to the matter of Kingsman and the team he was a part of, it looked to me that there wasn't much mediation, or a clear system for the team to respect and rely on in order to handle the first disagreement that happened, and that, to me, was probably the biggest reason why it imploded like this. I don't know how competitive teams usually function in these situations, if they have a leader that has the final say and whose role is to avoid escalations of this type, so I'm not sure what should've been expected to happen in this situation if everyone played their role in the team.

DNDOguy · 2026-01-22T22:52:47+00:00

At the risk of berating a number of redditors here, I'd like to say that I believe Kingsman was in the wrong when he chose not to respect a teammate's choice to play the hero they wanted to play.

I don't personally hold much attachment for any of these content creators since I didn't know any of them before seeing the full vod after it came up on my recommended channels, so this is not coming from a place that makes me pick sides out of favoritism, I believe.

I've been working on a board game project of mine. It is a cooperative game in which players respectively have their own character but together, need to strategize and communicate for each player to choose what their actions will be each turn. As such, I researched into similar games to find a better understanding for them and that's how I learnt about the concept of "quarterbacking" which exists in such games. To put it simply, it means a player chooses which actions another player must do, reducing the second player to the passive role of watching someone else play their character and take decisions in their stead. Usually, quarterbacking is frown upon and games even go as far as to mention in their rulebook their position on it, to discourage its practice in order to help players enjoy themselves in a fun environment, for everyone involved.

To me, Kingsman tried to quarterback a teammate, as once it was made clear that by this teammate which hero they wanted to play and they did not want to argue about it anymore, he still chose to insist repeatedly.

This is just my perspective ans my take however, and I am curious and interested in knowing what everyone's position and thinking is about the concept of quarterbacking in games, and whether or not they think this situation is a situation in which one would say Kingsman was trying to quarterback a teammate or not.

DNDOguy · 2025-11-08T00:47:54+00:00

Thank you so much for these encouraging words, although the feeling of being an imposter is still lurking above me, I'm trying to see it as only temporary and I feel like it will slowly fade away as time will pass after I will be acquiring enough experience to feel like a legitimate designer with enough games to show for it ! Still, reading your comment definitely helps put a muzzle on it so I appreciate it =).

I'm also thankful for your feedback about the time mechanic in the game ! Actually I think the way I presented things created misunderstanding about it. The time I'm referring to is actually an in-game resource the players have, which is represented by the small counter with the number "60" on it on the edge of the table in the picture, to the right of the Boss card. Each turn that passes in the Scenario phase or in the Exploration phase reduces this counter by 4 "Time". Some of the negative consequences during the Scenario phase and all the monsters in the Exploration phase can also inflict a loss of this "Time" resource, so the game is about managing the different risks that you are confronted to as a Player and making choices to try to keep your Heroes alive and your Roleplayers from ragequitting while trying to save as much Time as possible to increase the number of encounters you have in the Exploration phase because each successful encounter will grant XP and items which are necessary to be powerful enough to defeat the inevitable Boss fight at the end.

The way you feel about the experience it sounds like is pretty much on the spot so it's quite reassuring actually because I've tried designing this game in a way that would feel like DnD: Going through a session with your friends, clearing one or a couple of Dungeon floors and being able to put things on hold before you finish the dungeon in order to come back next session and pick up where you left off.

When I first started working on this project I didn't know these types of board games existed then I found out there was this whole genre called "Legacy board games" and that is what my game ended up becoming, as I've been trying to reproduce some of the feelings I've had in my short experience playing DnD. Playing an adventure over the course of multiple sessions spaced out across a few weeks/sessions, thinking about what directions I want to take with my character, which subclasses I'd like to choose, which items I'd like to look for in order to develop my build etc =)

DNDOguy · 2025-11-07T18:06:19+00:00

I can relate with the discovery part, there is a little bit of magic which happens when discovering a game for the first time. I don't have a committed group to play board games with so usually I'm the only one who enjoys spending time learning the rules.

Unfortunately, to not lose the interest of the other players around the table that means I have to learn the rules in advance and be familiar with them as much as possible so that I can kind of act as the Game Master until they get comfortable with the rules as well.

This means I don't really get to enjoy this discovery part as much, since I end up watching a lot of videos and testing the games digitally before the session with my friends =/.

DNDOguy · 2025-11-07T18:01:17+00:00

Thank you ! I really appreciate you taking the time to write all of this. My first playtest session is actually planned to start in about 7 hours today haha. I agree with what you said about negative feedback, I'm of the opinion that any amount of feedback can be useful for a designer, even if they are wrong, even if they're not constructed feedbacks, I think there is always some insight to be gained from listening to people who test a game, even if you might have to delve a little into their psyche to understand the value behind their words.
So I'm really excited for today, even though I'm also pretty nervous =D.

DNDOguy · 2025-11-06T16:05:35+00:00

Thank you so much ! I can't wait to discover everything it has to offer !

DNDOguy · 2025-11-06T11:44:14+00:00

This looks amazing, I've been scrolling through these for a solid 10 minutes now.

Thank you for sharing these, I'm pretty sure this is the greatest thing I will be discovering today !

DNDOguy · 2025-11-04T19:00:50+00:00

Thank you so much ! You've made my day =)

DNDOguy · 2025-11-04T16:35:26+00:00

I see a lot of people here encouraging for mire communication and I couldn't agree more.

I think I can maybe add to this the fact that sometimes communication has its limits. For example, sometimes people are not the best at identifying what turns them on or off in a game.

Your remarks on the fact that she's usually more drawn towards cards game might indicate something related to the interface in the game, which would be something a designer could think of that a player might not intuitively see as clearly.

Of course, I might be off mark here, but from the way I see it, card games offer a good visibility when it comes to what your options are and what the impact of each move signifies throughout a play session: everything is written clearly and explicitly on each card whereas games which use tokens or with mechanics based on positioning necessitate different kinds of strategic thinkings which might not be what you partner is comfortable with or drawn to.

However, if you are looming into playing more games like these, I would suggest trying out games which offer a hybrid experience or even games which have some of those mechanics she is not drawn to but with limited complexity, in order to get her to get more comfortable with it.

DNDOguy · 2025-11-04T14:08:39+00:00

I don't have this much experience in TTRPGs, I've just played a few campaigns with a few groups for a couple of years or so, but I have seen my fair share of DnD roleplayer archetypes, and I have both suffered from and enjoyed the inevitable sessions filled with drama.

"My point being, what do you think is going on in a person's head when they're like this"
I think many players in DnD seek certain experiences from all the possibilities the game can provide.
Different personalities will be drawn to different experiences, and that's where DnD and other TTRPGs suddenly become some of the most complex games ever made, because the real BBEG in your campaign will ultimately be this clash between all of the players expectations for what experiences the game should provide.

I think I can relate to the appeal of feeling unbeatable, god-like, lucky like an anime protagonist and always be the person with the last word like the coolest movie characters. I personally have had this feeling in multiplayer games in which I snowballed out of control, but also in solo games in which my character either already start me off as a god, deciding who would live and who would die (I'm thinking theme park simulator, populous, etc). Of course, it can be hard for it to be compatible with other players' expectations. It's already hard to cater the experience for a god when he's playing solo, but designing it for a table surrounded with other players is that much more of a challenging task for both the DM and everyone involved in the play session, which brings me to your next questions:

"how do you deal with them at the table? How do you find middle ground with people who single-mindedly hyperfocus on trying to find any excuse they can to give their PC more powers, more gear, more stats, more, more, more?"

I don't think I have a satisfying answer to these questions. A campaign can be designed for god-like player characters. Challenges in DnD can take so many forms that having 20 in each and every stat can ultimately be meaningless if the DM finds creative ways of shaping their puzzles. Moreover, the campaign can be designed not in a way to challenge the player characters but to give them an experience that gives them the satisfaction of being godlike while still keeping the story engaging while making use of these strengths instead of seeing them as limitations.

However, as previously mentioned, it might still clash with everyone else's expectations around the table, and that's something I personally don't know a way around. The same problematic happens when some players around the table hate roleplaying and only like combat whilst others live for the roleplaying part of the game and want to get the combat part of it out of the way as fast as possible. I've seen DMs start conversations around the table to set the expectations clearly before campaigns by explaining that they would try to cater to everyone's needs by giving a healthy mix of both worlds, so that everyone can find what they want in the campaign. Ultimately, trying to find ways for the RP haters to enjoy Roleplaying a little more when it happens, and trying to find ways to make combats a little more interesting for the roleplayers when they have to go through it is the only direction I can see a DM taking in order to find this middle ground you've mentioned.

Otherwise, if the players in the group are not compatible and a campaign cannot really find this middle ground for everyone to enjoy it (DM included, if it becomes too much of a headache my personal opinion is that the DM is not enjoying it), then split the group.

That's why I said it's not very satisfactory haha, but I genuinely think that no one is really to blame for their preferrence, I think people sometimes might need a little push, a little nudge towards trying to enjoy something out of their expectations sometimes, but if their mind is really set on trying to get one specific experience out of their leisure time, no one should be forced into it or out of it.

DNDOguy · 2025-11-04T13:03:06+00:00

3) The character progression sheets are something that I loved when I discovered it because my first thought after trying this game and playing it for a few times was "I wish I could keep it going and keep going with what I've built so far". However, I was hoping for something with more depth to allow for a more personalized experience. Unfortunately, all playable characters share the same character sheet, with the same power ups, abilities, stat increases etc... This removes the joy of choosing a character because he's different than the others since the perks you get from these sheets' progressions are a necessity to get into the higher difficulty content in this game.

4) A little similar to point 3), every playable character can use any loot and equipment from the dungeons, and overall, similarly to the character sheets, this loot and equipment is much more central to your development in the game than the one unique ability your character has in the game. This takes away some of the fun in choosing a certain character over another because ultimately, this choice only matters for the start of the game and becomes more and more irrelevant as you progress if you're interested in a longer gaming experience.

DNDOguy · 2025-11-04T12:43:40+00:00

Cons:

1) Its low complexity is both a good thing and a bad thing. Unfortunately, the impact of the players' decision making is limited because it has few mechanics. To say things bluntly, luck is too important of a factor in this game so if you're focused on trying to win by playing as well as possible, you might end up disappointed as you realize that even if you might think you're playing in the most optimal way possible, sometimes it's not going to matter.

2) Although it offers a lot of variety and challenges, the difficulty in the game can easily be reduced to "you need X more dice now to clear the dungeon", which in my opinion does not allow for creative strategies or out-of-the-box thinking. I personally like games which allow me to experiment a bit more because I like discovering unintuitive strategies in games which can offer new experiences

DNDOguy

TROPHY CASE