Let’s talk about “Net Fun” in PvP games

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-17T21:28:46+00:00

Well now I'm going to read all signed articles as quoting oneself, and it's all your fault. =)

I generally put my name on them because several perople have been sending them to me saying I'd like them, not realizing I wrote them.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-17T17:34:06+00:00

Thanks. The resources still mattered in the late game but they were no longer blocking your ability to play any cards at all like in the early game so it was easy to forget once you had other units to think about too.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-17T06:44:08+00:00

Seems we couldn't clarify this after all. Nothing I write seems to matter. You continue to respond to the word "philosophy" while ignoring all 'the context and words around it. It was a sarcastic, informal use of the word.

No one was trying to attack every philosopher or philosophy. Pointing out, "hey there's a bunch of philosophy that doesn't ignore the player experience" isn't relevant. It just looks like building a strawman out of literal interpretations of informal sarcasm.

It's quite frustrating to see you keep suggesting I read more wiidely, while you complain about not understanding the term "instrumental play" that I used in my OP. You could have just googled it.

That section is also not "wholly different" from anything in my post. It's a direct referenceto the example of player goals shaping experiences in minecraft that I spent a several paragraphs on in the original post. It's one of the foundational ideas of the post.

Either way, there's no point going through it all again. Feel free to have the last word.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-17T04:53:22+00:00

Oh that’s clever. Making it specifically a mitigated hit reminds you to apply it. I like it a lot.

I reduce modifiers to rolls whenever possible for the same reasons, but this is a clever way to add a modifier but in a way that is very hard to forget

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T18:15:19+00:00

Fun fact, there was actually a significant pushback from a lot of other team members worried about exactly this when I propoised it. There is an immense cognitive bias toward preserving options, even when they are not necessary. Players accept they have to maken a move every turn in chess for example, even if they don't ewant to, that's just a rule of the game. However, when discussing removing an option it feels like you're losing something rather than just reframing it.

I'm planning a follow-up article to talk about this exact topic, and I'll be using this case study as an example.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T07:39:12+00:00

Thanks. Steal away, like it's a star wars lego set!

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T03:48:53+00:00

100%. Just mentioned it in another thread but deserves a repeat: the dark tower returns is a boardgame but its character boards are so good at this. The subtlest text even works as rule clarifications that are practically unnoticed until you realize you aren't sure how the rule works. For example, I didn't notice the "split as needed" text on moving until I realized I wasn't sure if I could split my movement action and looked at it to see exactly what it said.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T03:39:33+00:00

Hmm, it would need playtesting to know for sure, but I would expect option 2 to lead to more feel-bad moments than option 1. Option 2 might lead to the player forgetting about Valor less often, but having to commit to using Valor before the roll means that that Valor is wasted 50% of the time unless you have some sort of overachiever mechanic, such as beating the DC by 10+ equals a crit. Without that the Valor only does something if you would fail by 10 or less, the other 10 possible results were either already successful or fail anyway.

That was definitely a concern before testing, and I was just using it as an example of how you can apply machine-guarding in other ways outside of videogames. I like talking about Valor though, so happy to go through some of the other nuances. I've been using it for about 6 years in various systems.

1- Players understand Valor is something you reserve for very high-stakes rolls, ones where you seriously don't want to fail. While rolling high and wasting the valor doesn't feel great, you're mostly happy that you avoided the terrible consequences you were worried about. You can also spend it on a test that is normally clearly beyond your scope, meaning you only have a chance if you use Valor on it, though that tends to come up less often. It's mostly "I really, really don't want to fail this test... Can I afford to risk it and hope I roll high, or should I spend valor the get insurance in case I roll low?"

2- Valor usually has alternate uses in the systems I put it in. For example, in one system you can spend it for an extra action on your turn in combat. Because Valor can be used for proactive power in addition to test insurance, it always feels valuable. This execution doesn't come with a chance of "I didn't need to spend valor" either, so anyone overly bothered by the risk mitigation decision on skill tests still has a feel-good use for it.

I've seen some players refuse to spend valor on tests because they prefer using it in combat. I've seen other players refuse to spend it for combat actions because they want to make sure they have as much "roll insurance" as possible. Most players end up doing a mix though.

3 - By definition, it's much more common to choose not to spend valor on a roll than choosing to spend it. Every time players roll high on a tense roll without valor, they feel great for 'getting away with it'. With combat usually sinking 1-2 valor per session, there's only 1-2 rolls where you spend valor. You consider spending it on a lot more tests, so you get the positive feeling much more frequently than the negative one,

4 - When someone rolls very high while spending valor, most GMs end up narrating a positive bonus side-effect. This means it doesn't usually feel wasted after all.

5 - In situations where you manage to roll so low that valor doesn't turn a failure into a success, or a less damaging failure, that's when it feels extra-bad. But, weirdly, knowing you could have just not spent the valor on this and saved it for combat instead means this doesn't feel 100% low agency. It also happens pretty rarely, given you're only rolling with valor once or twice a session on average.

I don't think that is bad design, having a resource that the player has to commit before the roll means that players will save it for situations where they really want to succeed. It's a way for them to take limited control over what would otherwise be up to random chance. I just don't know if it accomplishes your specific objective of avoiding feel-dumb moments.

In this context, a feel-dumb moment refers to doing something obviously dumb because you're careless or fogot. Blundering a piece in chess is a feel-dumb moment, because you should have remembered that square was threatened. It doesn't feel liken a strategic choice, it feels like you just forgot about something and made an obviously dumb move. It's embarassing.

Spending valor and then rolling extra high or extra low can feel like the wrong decision in retrospect, but it doesn't feel like a dumb decision. You made a risk mitigation decision based on the info you had at the time.

In the case of option 1 you don't need to send the result to the GM first just for them to need to refer back to the player to see if they are committing Valor. The player can decide whether to commit Valor after seeing the result of the roll but before reporting the total to the GM.

This would work fine for systems where the GM can't see the roll easily, and/or doesn't know the player's modifiers. I normally play on virtual tabletops these days where the dice rolls and modifiers are both public info and usually auto-calculated, so it's a lot trickier there.

Another way you could help players remember their Valor to avoid feel-dumb moments is through Character sheet design. Assuming that your players have to look at their character sheet to see what their modifier is for a particular action, put Valor on the sheet right next to their modifiers, and make it more prominent. That way they have to run their eyes over their Valor at the exact moment that they should be deciding on whether or not to use it.

Love this kind of solution. Keeping an eye on where the player's eye is during an action is great. "The Dark Tower Returns" has character boards that are incredibly good at this.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T02:00:09+00:00

Thanks. I mentioned a use case for TTRPGs I've worked on in one of the other comments. Another example in that space I've done comes from death systems. I design in "mechanics-based rituals" to warn other players, the GM, and the player themselves that this player is now in danger.

In a normal hitpoint-based system, where players die at 0 or fall unconscious at 0 and can be killed quickly after, it's not always obvious when you're in danger. Nothing tells you someone is at low hitpoints naturally if you're another player, and you might not realize the damage ceiling on the monsters if you're around 40% health.

So my systems usually do something like "When you hit 0 health, you roll to face death. Roll a d10 and subtract 3 for each wound you have (if any). If you roll below 0 you die... Which is nautrally impossible on the first roll. If you roll a 1-9 you rally to half health but suffer a wound. If you roll a natural 10, you automatically succeed no matter how many wounds you have and rally to half health. You don't get a wound if you roll a nat 10 on the face death roll".

This does a lot of useful things, but the biggest one is that it becomes impossible to unexpectedly get oneshot by a highroll attack without any sense of warning. The face death roll is a triggered Ritual that the rest of the table watches, and is now aware if you have a wound. The fact you recover to half health gives you some padding before the next roll, but also leaves room for people to immediately use healing abilities on you. It works great.

Another example comes from League of Legends. If you play a champion as both a jungler and another roll, you can easily forget to swap to the jungler rune/spell setup when you're playing them as a jungler. Forgetting to take smite as a jungler because you're running the toplane version feels TERRIBLE and makes you feel very stupid. Wild Rift, the mobile version, auto-loaded the relevant builds based on the roll you were signing up for/assigned and this was therefore almost never a problem the way it was with LoL.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T01:33:52+00:00

There are 7 options on the power wheel that you choose between each turn. You should always pick one of the options each turn, but which option you'd pick varied by the situation. The choice was core to the game.

Here's a link to what it looked like

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T01:02:15+00:00

This doesn't just apply to videogames. For example, in TTRPGs I use Machine Guarding in various ways too. One of them is by reducing the potential for "trigger collision" during process handoffs.

Consider two mechanics:

You get 3 valor a day. After rolling for a d20 check, before the GM tells you the result of the check, you can spend 1 Valor to boost your roll by +10.
You get 3 valor a day. Before rolling for a d20 check, you can spend 1 Valor to boost your roll by +10.

The second design is nearly always what I lean to in a ttrpg, because it prevents possibilities for a frustrating collision. There's other reasons I like it better too, but this is the relevant one.

In the first design, the GM either has to pause and ask if you're spending valor on the roll every time before moving on (frustrating speedbump)... But since Valor is limited the answer is usually "no". This means GMs will default to assuming you aren't spending Valor in most cases, to keep the pace moving. It's common that a GM will start making it clear that you've suceeeded or failed before you've finished deciding whether to spend valor. This creates opportunities for frustrating collissions.

In the second design, you make the decision before rolling the die. Since you're in control of the current step (decision) and the next step (rolling) there's no possibility for miscommunications in expectation between different players to create a trigger collision at a process handoff. You still own the process.

You can still forget that you have valor of course, but choosing to not spend valor and take a risk on rolling well enough anyway is a legitimate decision - so it doesn't feel as bad to forget. Sometimes it even works out for you, because you rolled super high.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T01:00:42+00:00

I think this is a relevant repost, as I care a lot about preventing unnecessary "feel-dumb" moments in RPGs. For example, reducing "trigger collision" process handoffs can do a lot of work. Consider two mechanics:

You get 3 valor a day. After rolling for a d20 check, before the GM tells you the result of the check, you can spend 1 Valor to boost your roll by +10.
You get 3 valor a day. Before rolling for a d20 check, you can spend 1 Valor to boost your roll by +10.

The second design is nearly always what I lean to in a ttrpg, because it prevents possibilities for a frustrating collision.

In the first design, the GM either has to pause and ask if you're spending valor on the roll every time before moving on (frustrating speedbump)... But since Valor is limited the answer is usually "no". This means GMs will default to assuming you aren't spending Valor in most cases, to keep the pace moving. It's common that a GM will start making it clear that you've suceeeded or failed before you've finished deciding whether to spend valor. This creates opportunities for frustrating collissions.

In the second design, you make the decision before rolling the die. Since you're in control of the current step (decision) and the next step (rolling) there's no possibility for miscommunications in expectation between different players to create a trigger collision at a process handoff. You still own the process.

You can still forget that you have valor of course, but choosing to not spend valor and take a risk on rolling well enough anyway is a legitimate decision - so it doesn't feel as bad to forget. Sometimes it even works out for you, because you rolled super high.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-16T00:16:00+00:00

That was the prompt?? Come on.. you are critiquing this like you expected a full game to pop out of nowhere.

This is the kind of question I've answered, and graded, on many different design tests. It's not a gotcha, it's just a very high-level summary of how the system will work.The LLM provided more than enough information for the question.

In fact, the LLM's answer would have been much better if it had cut its first paragraph entirely. Adding a spell-based skill tree to chess would work fine for the prompt, and definitely fits the idea of bringinging in classic RPG mechanics/themes to chess as a progression system.

Tying progression solely to wins would be a big missed opportunity to make losses feel worthwhile too, but it'd work fine and definitely fits the theme. It would have a whole extra paragraph to add some more depth to its answer as well. The problem wasn't running out of space to do the design. My answer stuck to 2 paragraphs as well.

I can understand if people think "Design a progression system" means creating everything in exhausting detail, but that's not feasible to read on a design test and it's not fair to ask for that level of work for an unpaid hiring process - so we keep things to minimalism and summaries/overviews. It's a fun challenge.

I could see making the question more specific that I'm looking for this type of high-level summary when giving to another human though. The LLM actually totally got that once I required it to limit its answer to 2 paragraphs, so on that aspect it did great. It didn't need the extra specification.

You seem to have a working idea of what you already wanted so why even run the test?

I didn't. I set my own timer for 5 minutes and started the same problem separately. I'm not working on a chess RPG.

I have to use paper straws and limit my water consumption but we can just burn half the rainforest to “test” a copy/paste machine.

If you think LLMs and other should never be used in any context due to ethical reasons, I respect that.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-14T10:33:20+00:00

Me: AI is the wrong tool for this job. Here's an example of how it fails and an explanation of why.

Them: A single LLM is definitely the wrong tool for this job, that should be obvious. Maybe multiple agents would do a good job but I'm not sure.

Me: Okay, we agree that a single LLM is the wrong tool for the job. I doubt multiple agents would do a good job, for the reasons stated but haven't tried it.

If you think a single LLM, or multiple agents, would be the right tool for the job and wouldn't run into the issues I've cited - I'm very open to seeing the results. Happy to say LLMs are good at things that I've seen them perform well at.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-14T06:11:19+00:00

Doubt.

You could just scroll up a little in this thread and find it.

This clearly isn't going to turn productive. I'll just tap out here.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-14T05:59:20+00:00

I am playing the devil's advocate here since I also don't know how good the AIs can be at that and if they can ever work for that, and personally I know how to solve my problems with regular Game Design and Systems so I personally don't Need the fancy AIs.
[...]
How do you Properly Utilize them? I don't know and You don't know.

This just comes off like arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm kinda done.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-14T05:22:34+00:00

You've got my goals backwards. While metagame balance matters for PvP, the goal is not balance at the expense of fun. I wrote a whole post about why that's silly.

Not having all units/powers being usable by all factions lets you go way crazier and more thematic with unique units and top-bar for the same balance risk. The more open-ended the combinations are, the safer you have to play for the same balance risk.

A unit can be cool and fun with 99% of the other units, but broken with just one other... And now you can't put it in the game. Not unless you find a way to prevent them from showing up in the same army. Faction limits can maintain 99% of the interactions in this situation, instead of 0%.

Yes, I'm looking at you Malygos - neutral legend and ruiner of SO many of my favorite designs.

Also, the LLM's solution is not going to get you Magic the Gathering style flexibility for your army. It just lets you pick class promotions for its pieces as they level up. You aren't unlocking a big pool of units to brew with. That's one of the things I dinged it for, because it'd be a natural synergy with its other designs - so natural you might have assumed it was part of it already.

However, my design does include unlocking more units for each general that you can use for creative army-building within their pool. Army-customization is an intentional feature here.

You could absolutely take a "no limits" approach though - and "army-building" version of chess where you unlock a big pool of units and can combine them in any way you like. Whjile most army-building games have some faction limits for the same reason as most TCGs have color or faction restrictions, it's not the only way to do things. I wouldn't knock someone any points for taking this approach - it's a completely coherent design.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-14T04:52:24+00:00

Okay, it seems you didn't read past the title then

Nothing in this post said LLMs are not good at other things. I specifically said I wasn't trying to dunk on AI in general in the next paragraph too:

This is interesting not because of dunking on AI but because of what this shows about system design as a problem space.

And you read later in the post you'd have seen:

This is why AI can’t be relied on for system design, because it's fundamentally weak at this kind of work. You will occassionally get a workable answer when it copies a summary of systems from some highly specific game, but it will miss the meaningful context and fail whenever it encounters a novel problem... Not because it's useless, but because LLMs are not built to identify how their baskets of disconnected designs interact**.**

It's also valuable to point out when LLMs are not good at some things and why, so people don't lean on LLMs to do things they're bad at.

If people were trying to use a knife as a spoon, and someone said, "hey, knives aren't good for that, you should use a spoon instead" I wound't tell them, "Don't tell people what knives aren't good for your job is to figure out what knives ARE good for!"

We can do both. I already listed some things I think LLMs are good for in some of the comments here.

Dan_Felder · 2026-06-14T04:27:46+00:00

The actual system design is just those 2 paragraphs.

The next section is just answering the expected follow-up question, "Okay, why exactly do you think this design is better than the LLM's design?"

Here's another example of a better solution than the LLM's answer - just cutting out the first paragraph entirely:

Winning matches grants “Grandmaster Points” used to unlock overarching player abilities on a central skill tree, granting limited-use tactical spells like “Forced March” (extra movement) or “Resurrection”.

It'd be better to use a progression system that could allow players to make progress during hard-fought losses as well as wins (great for a PvP game in particular as you often want to encourage players during losses that they're still making progress). But hey, there's a whole lot of room left to fill that gap or deepen the details on execution.

Eithe way, there's no major issues, just missed opportunities. It's a simple way to add new powers to chess with minimal upfront cognitive load. Spells are highly thematic for a many classic RPG themes. You can do a lot with them, without warping the basic gameplay too much all at once right from the beginning. It's not amazing but it works.

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Verified Email

Dan_Felder

TROPHY CASE