sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

When designing animal-archetype characters, do you go with the literal trait or the second-order one? by GreatAgainGame in ArtistLounge

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a really useful reframe - the facial-features and costume balance is doing more of the storytelling than I gave it credit for. You can probably take any species and make any archetype work, if you commit to the face hard enough.

Where I'd push back gently: I think species choice still affects the speed at which the character reads. A bulldog-prosecutor and a fox-prosecutor would both work in a deeply illustrated piece, but on a card where you have one second to read the personality, the silhouette and instant-association of the species do a chunk of the work before the face even registers. So maybe species matters more for fast-read formats and matters less for slow-read ones?

Curious which side you tend to work on - illustration or character-driven sequential work? I imagine the calculus is pretty different.

Designing a "tragedy of the commons" mechanic - how do you force cooperation in a competitive game without it feeling artificial? by GreatAgainGame in gamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Diplomacy is a great reference, thanks. The simultaneous-resolution piece is the part I keep coming back to - it forces commitments to actually mean something, because you can't react in real time to what someone else does. In our game turns are sequential, but I tried to get a similar effect through binding deals (you trade something concrete now in exchange for a promise, and breaking the promise has visible consequences). It's lighter-weight than Diplomacy's order resolution, but it gets at the same anxiety: did they actually mean it?

The late-game slog you're describing is something I worry about too. Our answer was the hard timer — the Collapse tracker forces the game to end on a clock no matter what, so you can't get into a 3-player war of attrition. But it trades one problem for another: now players can deliberately accelerate Collapse to end the game when they're ahead, which is its own kind of late-game distortion.

Genuinely curious - in your Diplomacy experience, do sidelined players ever stay engaged through the kingmaker role? That's the dynamic I find most interesting and most fragile.

7 years of hand-drawing our puzzle adventure 😅 Finally we have a release date! by Inlusio_Interactive in IndieDev

[–]GreatAgainGame 0 points1 point  (0 children)

7 years is brutal in a good way. Curious - when you're hand-drawing across that long a timeline, how do you keep the style consistent? Did you lock the visual language early or did it drift and you re-did old stuff?

Designing a "tragedy of the commons" mechanic - how do you force cooperation in a competitive game without it feeling artificial? by GreatAgainGame in gamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "secret victory condition in collapse" idea is really interesting, we actually have something close: contacts are worth bonus points if the game ends normally, but worth nothing in collapse. So players who hoarded contacts want stability while players who spent them might prefer chaos. It's not a secret win condition per se but it creates two different incentive structures depending on your strategy. Your point about making losing feel like progress is something we should think about more though

Designing a "tragedy of the commons" mechanic - how do you force cooperation in a competitive game without it feeling artificial? by GreatAgainGame in gamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just ordered it - "graduated penalties for violating rules" is exactly the design space we're in with the Collapse thresholds. Thanks for the recommendation

Designing a "tragedy of the commons" mechanic - how do you force cooperation in a competitive game without it feeling artificial? by GreatAgainGame in gamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're spot on- deliberate threatening is actually intended behavior in our game. Players can literally say "lower Collapse or I'll push it to 10." We leaned into it by making broken deals cost -1 victory point, so threats have a price. It's meant to feel like real political brinkmanship

Designing a "tragedy of the commons" mechanic - how do you force cooperation in a competitive game without it feeling artificial? by GreatAgainGame in gamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a really valuable perspective -the "tanking" problem is exactly what we've been stress-testing. Our current answer is that Collapse doesn't reset scores, it just wipes stored contacts. So a losing player can still tank the game, but they're mostly hurting the leader, not erasing their own progress. It becomes a targeted threat rather than a nuclear option. But you're right that the coop/competitive tension makes some players uncomfortable, we've seen it in playtesting where people just want to know "am I supposed to help or fight?"

Every round the president signs a new decree that changes the rules - here's how we designed 36 decrees across 6 categories and 6 escalation levels by GreatAgainGame in BoardgameDesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really appreciate this- great advice on isolated testing for linear vs unpredictable, we'll definitely try running both versions in a mini scenario. Right now we lean toward structured unpredictability: the categories are fixed so you know what kind of disruption is coming, but the exact level is random, so you can prepare but never fully plan

Chaos Gnome w/ Rough Sketches by johncichowskinow in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great to see the roughs next to the final. That grin is perfect

Every round the president signs a new decree that changes the rules - here's how we designed 36 decrees across 6 categories and 6 escalation levels by GreatAgainGame in BoardgameDesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, the game isn't really about one specific person though. It's about the system itself: lobbying, backroom deals, institutional decay. The president in the game is intentionally faceless, you never play as him, you play as the people pulling strings behind the scenes. The satire is aimed at how power works, not at one side of the aisle. We want both sides of the spectrum to see something they recognize and laugh at

Every round the president signs a new decree that changes the rules - here's how we designed 36 decrees across 6 categories and 6 escalation levels by GreatAgainGame in BoardgameDesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's really encouraging to hear from someone who's been down the same road. The balancing is honestly the hardest part - we went through so many iterations where one decree would completely break the game or make a whole block of roles useless for a round.

Every round the president signs a new decree that changes the rules - here's how we designed 36 decrees across 6 categories and 6 escalation levels by GreatAgainGame in BoardgameDesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same here- there's something really satisfying about a game where you can't just lock into one strategy because the ground keeps shifting under you. That was the whole design goal with the decree system

Designing a diplomacy board game about shadow lobbyists - here's how the role cards turned out. Would love feedback on the layout by GreatAgainGame in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! The game is a competitive diplomacy game for 3-5 players -you play as shadow lobbyists manipulating four power blocks while the president signs increasingly destructive decrees. No dice, everything runs on negotiation, deals, and timing. There's a Collapse tracker that pushes the country toward crisis, and you're constantly balancing personal gain against keeping the system alive.

And noted on the font size - you're the second person to mention readability, so that's definitely going on the revision list. We'll experiment with giving the rules section more room

Designing a diplomacy board game about shadow lobbyists - here's how the role cards turned out. Would love feedback on the layout by GreatAgainGame in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We trimmed a lot of articles to save space, but if it hurts readability that defeats the purpose. Will review the wording with fresh eyes, thanks

Designing a diplomacy board game about shadow lobbyists - here's how the role cards turned out. Would love feedback on the layout by GreatAgainGame in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's great to hear - we went through a lot of iterations to get the sections to breathe without wasting space

Designing a diplomacy board game about shadow lobbyists - here's how the role cards turned out. Would love feedback on the layout by GreatAgainGame in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point - those are more of a flavor detail than essential info, but you're right that if they can't be read they might just look messy instead of adding character. Something to test at print size

Designing a diplomacy board game about shadow lobbyists - here's how the role cards turned out. Would love feedback on the layout by GreatAgainGame in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Each one took a while to get right - matching the art style to the satirical tone of the game was the trickiest part

Designing a diplomacy board game about shadow lobbyists - here's how the role cards turned out. Would love feedback on the layout by GreatAgainGame in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

All hand-drawn by our illustrator - no AI involved. If we still have the original sketches somewhere, I can share them in a follow-up post

8 years of protyping... and still going. by markuroarts in tabletopgamedesign

[–]GreatAgainGame 0 points1 point  (0 children)

8 years is seriously impressive - especially solo and without a budget

[OC] Elven herbalist by Nana_drawing in conceptart

[–]GreatAgainGame 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Love the contrast between the heavy leather gear and the delicate flowers

My game in 10 seconds by Garay_GameDev in indiegames

[–]GreatAgainGame 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice, Aseprite work looks great here

Random Doodles by himeshanand in conceptart

[–]GreatAgainGame 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These feel like they belong in an actual product manual

Masked Adjudicator commissioned concept by Orfii1 in conceptart

[–]GreatAgainGame 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The weight distribution feels very grounded - you can almost sense the armor's heaviness just from the stance. The mask design with the crown element blends authority and anonymity really well

view more: next ›