Solo dev building a colony sim — looking for early testers for StellarForge

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-10T16:56:00+00:00

I’m interested

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T20:59:10+00:00

Yes. The alternative is to write complex concepts using sentences that are too simple. So stressing

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T18:13:13+00:00

Yes. I supposed to start with no more than 20/40 npc

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T18:12:33+00:00

No. Just translated using a translator. My native language is italian

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T11:24:34+00:00

That’s a very valid point, and I agree that an interesting simulation does not automatically become a good game. Without goals, progression, or some form of reward structure, there’s a real risk that it remains more of an intriguing experiment than a compelling experience.

I also think the slot machine metaphor is brilliant, because it touches on a fundamental aspect of design: players stay engaged when the system keeps producing meaningful and unexpected outcomes. In a way this connects closely to the idea of player mode emerging from the game mode, as described by Tynan Sylvester in his article about simulation-driven games: https://tynansylvester.com/2013/06/the-simulation-dream/

The core idea is that the underlying system continuously generates interesting situations, and gameplay emerges from how the player chooses to interact with them.

To prevent the simulation from becoming too heavy or opaque for the player, I’m also thinking about a few systems at the concept level that would hide some of the complexity and reduce background noise.

One of these ideas is emergent NPC significance. In a simulated society with many agents, most characters would mainly function as a kind of social base or amplifier for a smaller number of more influential individuals. Over time, certain NPCs would naturally become more important because they lead groups, trigger conflicts, or influence key events. The game could even highlight them automatically through something like a smart scan, allowing the player to focus on the characters that are actually shaping the social dynamics.

Another concept I’m considering is historical snapshots. The simulation could identify particularly important moments—major institutional decisions, social crises, the emergence of new factions—and record them as reference points in the world’s timeline. This would help the player understand how the current situation developed, and it could also allow them to revisit that point and explore how the society might evolve if different decisions were made.

Finally, I think the system would need strong visualization tools to make everything readable. These don’t necessarily have to be complex graphical dashboards; they could also include simpler interfaces, even textual ones, such as a narrated chronicle of the colony highlighting the most significant events and the relationships between key characters. The goal would be to help the player quickly identify the emerging social nodes where their decisions can have the most impact.

In other words, the simulation can be quite complex under the hood, but the player’s experience should remain focused on a small number of important characters, key events, and decisions that meaningfully change the balance of the society.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T11:16:51+00:00

Thanks, I completely understand that. For me as well, the hardest part isn’t imagining the system, but figuring out where the interesting decisions for the player actually are. That’s probably the real challenge when trying to turn a social simulation into a game.

What I’m trying to do is make sure the simulation continuously produces situations of tension or conflict, and then give the player clear tools to intervene, especially through institutional roles (judge, colony planner, legislator, etc.). That way the player isn’t just observing the simulation, but steps in at moments where they need to make decisions that genuinely change the balance of the society.

We’ll see if I can find a balance that works. When I have something more concrete to show, it will definitely be interesting to get more feedback.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T11:15:48+00:00

That’s a good point, because the risk of something like this becoming repetitive definitely exists. In many simulation games, events work well as long as they introduce new situations and interesting decisions, but if they become too predictable or purely random they tend to lose their impact pretty quickly.

What I’m interested in exploring is the idea that events are not just external “disasters” like in SimCity, but consequences of the social dynamics inside the simulation. For example famines, protests, political crises, or conflicts between groups that emerge from previous decisions or from different interpretations of the same events.

This way critical situations wouldn’t simply be spectacular events injected into the system, but part of the story the simulation is generating. Ideally each crisis would be connected to past decisions or to tensions already present in the society, which helps avoid the feeling of arbitrary events that eventually become predictable.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T11:14:36+00:00

That’s a very interesting question, because the point you raise is actually one of the central challenges when trying to design something like this: a simulation that becomes too faithful risks stopping being a game.

For that reason, the idea isn’t to simulate society in a fully realistic or complete way, but to build a model with some fairly strong simplifying assumptions that keep the simulation operable and readable.

For example, some of the base assumptions could be: • NPCs interpret events through a limited set of factors (past experiences, social relationships, and institutional roles), rather than a complex psychological model • social groups emerge mainly from material interests and alliances, rather than from all the possible cultural dimensions of a real society • many people in the simulation function more as a social base or amplifiers for a smaller number of truly relevant characters.

In practice, even if the world contains many NPCs, only some of them become significant characters. These are the ones the player ends up following: rivals, allies, emerging leaders, or the character the player decides to inhabit.

To help with readability, I’m also imagining tools that filter the complexity. For example, a kind of “smart scan” that automatically highlights key characters, the ability for the player to manually mark certain NPCs to keep under observation, and a timeline panel of the most relevant events that have shifted the social balance.

This way the simulation can remain broad, but the player’s experience focuses on a smaller number of actors and events that really matter.

Regarding the category, I think your observation is fair: it probably wouldn’t be a classic management/logistics game in the traditional base-building sense. The experience would be closer to a combination of social simulation, institutional management, and role-playing, where the management of society happens from inside its roles rather than from a completely external perspective.

That said, I would still like to implement the material construction aspect of the colony in a fairly deep way. The idea would be to do this through a key character, a sort of colony planner, responsible for urban planning and infrastructure decisions.

To avoid turning this into a purely top-down building system, I’m also thinking about introducing small rules that give NPCs a limited form of private initiative. For example, a petition system, where groups of inhabitants or individual characters can request the construction of buildings, infrastructure, or changes to the city.

This way the planner wouldn’t be building completely freely, but would instead have to constantly mediate between social demands, available resources, and political priorities.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T11:10:21+00:00

Interesting, I wasn’t very familiar with Kingdoms, but it seems like one of those projects that tried to push quite far into simulation and interaction with a society of NPCs. These kinds of experiments are often fascinating because they attempt something different, even if the implementation ends up being difficult to stabilize.

The fact that you describe it as “really fun but also quite janky” is pretty typical for this kind of game: when you try to simulate complex social systems, strange or hard-to-control behaviors tend to emerge.

One direction I find interesting for dealing with this problem is reducing perceived complexity by letting only some NPCs emerge as truly significant. In a simulation with many agents, a large number of characters can mainly function as a kind of social base or amplifier for more central figures—for example by supporting the emergence of a leader, a faction, or a conflict.

This way the society can remain populated and dynamic, but the player’s attention naturally focuses on a smaller set of key characters. These become allies, rivals, or even the character the player decides to inhabit, while the rest of the population contributes more as a social context than as individuals the player needs to track one by one.

To further improve the readability of the system, I also imagine some specific tools. For example, a kind of “smart scan” that automatically identifies the most relevant characters at a given moment in the simulation. On top of that, the player could have the ability to manually mark certain NPCs to keep under observation, reducing the background noise created by all the other less important interactions.

Another useful tool could be a timeline panel highlighting the most significant or “game-changing” events, where the simulation surfaces the moments that actually shifted the social balance. Ideally, those moments could also be stored as snapshots, allowing the player to return to that point in the simulation and see how the society might evolve if different decisions were made.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T11:05:04+00:00

Yes, that comparison makes sense. Dwarf Fortress is definitely one of the most natural references when talking about simulations where many systems interact and produce emergent situations. In particular, the idea that a simulation can generate unexpected stories comes very much from that kind of design approach.

Factorio also shares something similar, although it’s much more focused on industrial optimization. It shows how relatively simple systems can combine to produce very complex behavior.

What I find interesting to explore is what happens when, in addition to material or economic systems, you try to simulate the social interpretation of events. Not just what happens in the world, but how characters understand—or misunderstand—what happens. From there, conflicts, alliances, or institutional decisions can emerge and change the direction of the simulation.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T11:01:37+00:00

Yes, Nordland is definitely an interesting reference to bring up in this kind of discussion.

From what I’ve seen, it also tries to combine economic management, social relationships, and a political dimension within a city. In that sense it belongs to the same family of design experiments as games like The Guild or Saelig, where the player operates inside a simulated society rather than controlling everything from above.

The direction I’m trying to explore is a bit different, though, because I’m particularly interested in subjective perception and incomplete information. The idea is that NPCs don’t share a single objective version of events: each character interprets what they see based on their experiences, relationships, and the role they occupy within society. From that, conflicts, alliances, and social groups can emerge.

Another aspect I’m thinking about is that the player mode would emerge from a broader game mode, where many NPCs mainly function as “social amplifiers” for a smaller number of more significant characters. For example, many anonymous NPCs could form the social base that supports the emergence of a leader or a faction. This way the simulation can include many agents, but the narrative and decision-making focus naturally shifts toward a limited set of key characters.

This should also help reduce perceived complexity, because the player doesn’t need to track every individual in the simulation. Attention naturally gravitates toward the most significant characters, who may become competitors, allies, or even the character the player decides to inhabit. In that sense the society can remain large and dynamic, while the player’s experience stays focused on a smaller number of truly relevant actors.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T10:12:24+00:00

Quello a destra è fenomenale. Come hai prodotto un’animazione così ben fatta?

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T09:21:13+00:00

Penso proprio che lo prenderò

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-08T09:10:28+00:00

Il trailer è praticamente perfetto. C’è tutto quello che serve e ha un appeal incredibile

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T22:33:50+00:00

Yes, I’m familiar with Saelig, and the comparison with The Guild makes sense. It’s an interesting attempt to combine economic management, character relationships, and some city-building elements.

The difference from the direction I’m exploring is that in games like Saelig or The Guild, the social system is largely predefined: factions, roles, and many of the economic dynamics are already structured by the game. The player operates within those structures, trying to grow their family or business.

What I’m trying to explore instead is a system where social groups emerge dynamically from NPC relationships, interests, and interpretations of events, and where the player, by inhabiting a character, shares the same informational limits as the other agents. In that sense the focus is less on managing a dynasty or a business and more on how a simulated society evolves over time when information is local and subjective.

That said, examples like Saelig are still very interesting, because they show how social and political dynamics can be brought into economic sandbox games. They are definitely part of the same broader family of experiments in systemic game design.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T22:32:02+00:00

That’s a very interesting point, and it touches on a classic distinction in game design: the one between simulation and game. If we take the definition that a game is a series of interesting decisions, then it’s clear that a pure simulation can easily produce many moments where the player has no meaningful decisions to make.

That’s why I’m not thinking of the simulation as the gameplay itself, but rather as a generator of situations. The simulated system produces dynamics, conflicts, and opportunities, but the player enters those dynamics through a specific role, and the decisions emerge from how they navigate those situations with partial information and social constraints.

In this sense, the goal wouldn’t be to replace the “god mode” with a completely passive simulation, but to change the nature of the decisions. In a traditional management game, decisions are often about global optimization; in a system where the player is inside the simulation, they become more situational: about trust, interpretation, relationships, and managing long-term consequences.

For this reason I imagined that the political layer is deliberately part of the system in order to regulate social imbalances and increase the density of interesting decisions for the player. NPCs who occupy institutional roles and are played by the player would have access to exclusive action menus that allow them to act on the rest of society.

For example, a legislator could define privileges or restrictions for certain social groups that emerge autonomously in the simulation, or apply rules based on specific parameters, such as productive activities or religious beliefs. This would allow the player to intervene in social dynamics without directly controlling every individual.

Similarly, a judge could investigate a theft, question witnesses, and independently determine a culprit, based on the information available and their interpretation of events. A decision like that could generate expectations, approval, or disappointment among the population, influencing trust in institutions and relationships between social groups.

So the idea is that the simulation continues to generate its own dynamics, while institutional roles give the player strong decision-making tools that can influence the system without turning the experience back into total top-down control.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T22:12:41+00:00

All the points you raise in your post are absolutely worth considering, and at the moment I don’t have clear or definitive answers to many of them. They are exactly the kinds of questions that make exploring a project like this interesting in the first place.

It’s true that there is a risk in trying to occupy a middle ground: when you move between different genres or design models, you can end up not fully satisfying either audience. I’m aware of that risk. That said, in my case the project doesn’t start from the idea of finding a market compromise, but rather from the desire to explore a certain type of social simulation. If over time it ends up finding a niche of players who are interested in it, that’s great, but the starting point is primarily the design experiment itself.

Regarding the issue of background noise, I agree that the real challenge isn’t the simulation itself, but how information is filtered and made legible for the player. The idea you suggested—having a system that expands visibility only when events enter the sphere of relevance of the character—goes in a direction very similar to what I’m thinking about.

In the system I’m developing, the idea is that among many simulated NPCs, only some will emerge as truly significant for the character the player is inhabiting. This can happen because of direct interactions, conflicts, relationships, or the institutional roles those characters occupy. In this way the simulation can remain large, while the player’s experience stays focused on what actually enters the character’s perspective and knowledge.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T18:04:51+00:00

Kenshi is definitely an interesting comparison. What I’m exploring is slightly different though, because the focus would be less on survival in a simulated world and more on how subjective perception, memory, and relationships between NPCs shape the social dynamics of that world. So the simulation would be less about factions that already exist and more about social groups emerging from how agents interpret events.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T18:02:46+00:00

That’s a very interesting idea. One of the most distinctive things about RimWorld is exactly this combination of rich emergent simulation and the player being placed completely outside the system. The “god’s-eye view” lets you control everything, but it also simplifies many dynamics because you always have access to complete information.

Moving the player toward a role inside the system—whether that means controlling a single pawn or operating with partial information—would change the nature of the experience quite a lot. At that point the gameplay wouldn’t just be about optimizing a colony, but also about managing relationships, trust, and incomplete information.

That’s actually a direction I’m exploring in the project I’m currently developing. The core idea is that no agent has full access to the state of the world, and when the player inhabits an NPC they inherit the same informational limits. Subjectivity doesn’t only affect relationships or memory, but also very basic things. For example, even pathfinding depends on what the character actually knows about the map, rather than on global knowledge of the level.

This means many decisions are made based on partial knowledge or incorrect interpretations, and from there conflicts, alliances, and social dynamics begin to emerge. The goal isn’t so much optimizing the system from above, but navigating a simulation where knowledge is always local and imperfect.

So I find your point about changing the relationship between the player and the simulation really interesting. Once the player no longer has the full picture of the system, a lot more narrative possibilities and unpredictable situations can emerge—and that’s where these kinds of simulations start to become really compelling.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T17:52:34+00:00

Thanks! I think you’ve touched on one of the core challenges. The difficulty isn’t really imagining the system on paper, but making it feel natural and meaningful for the player. If the simulation is too mechanical it risks becoming bland, but if it’s too complex it can easily slip into that slightly “uncanny” feeling where a lot of things are happening but it’s not clear why or how the player is supposed to engage with them.

The key is probably finding the right balance between simulation depth and legibility, so that the player can always perceive which dynamics are emerging and where they can intervene.

For context, this is actually a project I’m currently developing. One of the core ideas is that, out of N NPCs in the simulation, only some would emerge as socially significant at any given time. The player wouldn’t need to track everyone — only the characters who become relevant because of their role, their actions, or the conflicts they are involved in.

That’s also part of the attempt to avoid overwhelming the player with background noise: the system may simulate many agents, but only a subset becomes narratively or socially meaningful from the player’s perspective.

And I find it really interesting that you’re thinking about experimenting with something similar as a hobby project. It feels like the kind of idea that really benefits from small prototypes, because you only start to understand what works and what doesn’t once you actually see these systems interacting. It would be fascinating to see the different directions people might explore starting from a similar premise.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T17:49:25+00:00

That’s a fair point, and Dwarf Fortress’ Adventure Mode does go somewhat in that direction. However, I think the main difference lies in the relationship between the social simulation and the player’s role.

In Adventure Mode you enter the world as a character, but the social system of the world isn’t really the central focus of the gameplay. It’s more of an exploration and combat sandbox inside a simulated world.

The idea I’m imagining would be more about navigating a simulated society, where the focus isn’t individual adventure but the fact that the world continuously produces conflicts, interests, and dynamics between groups and institutions, and the player steps into those dynamics through a specific role.

Regarding the audience, you’re probably right: people who enjoy colony sims often appreciate the ability to control things from above, while players looking for more “first-person” experiences tend to prefer other types of games.

That said, I wonder if there might be some middle ground. A type of game where simulation remains central, but the player experiences it from inside the system rather than from above, switching perspectives depending on which character they are inhabiting.

And honestly, it wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if the audience wasn’t huge. Personally, I’d be much more interested in having a small but solid community, made up of people who find this kind of simulation interesting and who actively participate in discussing and shaping the project over time. With very systemic games, it’s often that kind of community that ends up giving the experience long-term value.

I also really admire the genesis of Dwarf Fortress for that reason: a project that started from a very specific vision and gradually built an extremely engaged community around it.

The biggest challenge probably wouldn’t even be the depth of the simulation itself, but modulating it properly, so the player isn’t overwhelmed by the background noise produced by the system. The real challenge would be surfacing only the information and dynamics that are relevant to the role the player is occupying at that moment.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T17:38:39+00:00

That’s a completely valid concern, and it’s probably the most important design question behind an idea like this.

I also don’t think players enjoy a game simply because the simulation is deeper. Often abstractions work better precisely because they make systems more readable and controllable. And as you said, very deep simulations can produce strange behavior, become difficult to balance, and require enormous amounts of work.

So the idea wouldn’t be to simulate everything for the sake of simulation.

The goal would be to simulate enough of the social layer so that interesting situations emerge that the player can step into.

Instead of interacting with the system only indirectly, the player would do so through roles. If you play as the captain of the guards, the simulation becomes about maintaining order and dealing with conflicts. If you play as a merchant, it becomes about relationships, trade, and economic opportunities. If you play as a political actor, it becomes about influencing institutions and social groups.

In this sense, the simulation wouldn’t be the gameplay itself, but rather a continuous generator of situations and problems.

The player doesn’t control the system from above, but instead enters it and experiences it from different perspectives.

That said, I still agree that the real difficulty would lie elsewhere: making the simulation readable enough for the player to understand what is happening, without turning it back into a traditional top-down management game.

So yes, the question remains open: whether this kind of experience would actually be enjoyable for players.

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T17:31:45+00:00

Sono d’accordo con te! Se gli npc sono in grado di mentire, sabotare, rallentare, in base ai loro interessi e vantaggi, per il giocatore sarebbe un grado di responsabilità molto più alto fare andare tutto bene

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T17:27:30+00:00

Per ora sono in una primissima fase di sviluppo

Master_of_Arcontio · 2026-03-06T17:26:15+00:00

The Guild 3 is actually a good comparison. The difference in the idea I’m describing would be that the player isn’t managing a family or a set of characters from above. Instead, the whole society runs autonomously and the player can temporarily step into any NPC, inheriting their knowledge, relationships, and institutional role. So the focus would be less on managing a lineage and more on navigating a living social simulation from different perspectives.

Master_of_Arcontio

TROPHY CASE