I have been utterly caught up in writing DnD homebrew as of late. I’ve gotten the ground work for another class all laid out, and I’ve got a number of races/lineages in the wings as well.

As exciting as that is, it also means I’ve been paying very little attention to developing this game. The good thing is that it shouldn’t be too hard to implement mechanically.

The primary gameplay loop for both the runners and the trapper are predicting the go/no-go mentality of the antagonist. Runners have to predict whether the trapper will activate a trap area, and the trapper has to predict if the runners will run though the area.

As the design currently stands, the board will be modular, with the trapper getting to choose where to place their single-use traps with higher lethality and range and multi-use traps that can only cover one square. The runners will get to insert a number of safe squares into the course to ensure that they will have places to wait.

Cards will be used by the trapper to “program” which trap spaces will go activate and which will remain dormant and by the runner to indicate whether or not they’ll run.

There’ll be an overall time round limit so runners can’t simply wait out the trapper, but I’m not sure how large it should be yet. I’m also thinking of a number of gimmick traps that will spice up the game a little bit more.

I’ll make sure I don’t get too distracted by writing homebrew and come out with a great game next week. See you all then!

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, please visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

I’m normally rather opposed to programming games. I find that I can’t get into the gameplay. The feeling I get when I lack control of my actions after I’ve assigned them is simply not one I can enjoy, and, despite my love of bluffing games, the mind game of planning out my moves to counter what I think someone else’s move is going to be feels too impersonal for my tastes.

I’d like to work on what I’d consider a micro version of the programming game, where there are prediction elements on the decisions of the other players within a single turn.

I’d like it to be similar to the Death Run minigame found in GMod servers. You have to predict the movement of their players as they run down a death hallway. It’ll be an asymmetrical game obviously, where one player controls the death hallway and the others are runners.

The traps of the hallway must be decided before runners make their decisions to move. Essentially, the trap must be programmed to go off when a player crosses it. I’ll iron out the details more, but it’s a sound concept for now. I’m excited to see where the process takes me.

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, please visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

I really struggled with doing this, but I have to axe the project. Through all of my play testing, I couldn’t create a satisfactory rule set of which I could feel proud, and, even with extensive changes to the base concept of the game, I couldn’t even make the gameplay good enough to be enjoyable.

I’d like to chalk it up to waiting being a boring concept for a game, but I was really hoping that I could come up with something concrete. I failed to live up to that expectation.

I have to chalk this project up as a failure, both on a creative and technical standpoint. While it’s not a part of the creative process I like putting on display, failure is still a part of it.

I have to call it my loss here and improve in the future. If I’m ever going to do a concept so obviously challenging to design in the future, I’ll make sure to release it as a side project completed on my own time, rather than a full three-week project.

I won’t be releasing this game in any capacity and will instead focus my energy on making the next game a good one. I may return to the concept of a waiting game at some point, but I’ll need to completely revamp the idea. It’s disappointing that I’ve failed this time, but creation can sometimes be a process of failure, and, in this case, it was. I hope you can understand.

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, please visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

I did keep everyone waiting, keeping in theme. Having to take a break last week was rough, but I’m good now.

The concept I came up with is that one player is the waiting and cruel creator of a set of totems. The rest of the players are thieves trying to steal the totems. The creator wants to have all but one of the totems stolen, as the thieves will spread a curse hidden in the totems. However, it needs the power of one totem to do so, so it must keep at least one.

This manifests as players/thieves trying to take all the totems from the waiting player/creator, and the creator attempting to only catch the final thief.

The thieves must sneak, one by one, to grab a totem from the immediate vicinity of the creator before one minute passes.

I’m thinking a point system would be best for this game, wherein you get one point per totem stolen, keeping in mind that you must keep one.

The players rotate the role of the creator until someone reaches a point threshold, likely around 7, but it’ll depend on the amount of players.

That’s really I have so far, but it covers lots of important stuff, including flavor, rules, and some considerations that I’ve come up with so far, though I still haven’t got a name for this project yet. Thanks to my break, I’m feeling really excited about this game, and I hope you are too!

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, please visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

I want to make a game about waiting. This concept really stuck out to me when I was brainstorming. A game where the primary gameplay loop is waiting.

For a video game, this is much easier to implement. The game takes care of the counting for you, so you don’t have to care about managing the waiting. I’ll have to something similar, using the other players to act as a counting mechanism towards likely one player’s primary loop of waiting.

That’s the direction I’ll likely be going with this period’s game, and I can’t wait to update you with more solid rule progress next week. See you then!

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, please visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

I still don’t have a final name for the project yet, but I do have the rules all figured out, so let’s talk about that!

The players, their number soft capped at 6, are tasked with gaining as many points as possible, in a sort of free-for-all collectathon. They’ll be collecting from a series of cards placed face-down before them.

They have the option to Scout, Loot, and Attack any of the cards in front of them, with Scout not providing a point benefit, but rather a knowledge one. Some of the cards have point deficits associated with them, depending on if the player Loots or Attacks them, so players can spend their turn eschewing the risk rather than risking their points.

This can act as a double edged sword, because other players can base their movements on the player who Scouted’s reaction before their next turn.

It’s relatively simple, but the risk versus reward gameplay is fun. I ended up having to drop most, if not all, of the bluffing gameplay that I planned, but the game works much better without deceptive elements.

It’s important to remember not to sacrifice game quality for the sake of keeping the tradition of its original concept. Of course, this does have exceptions, such as using that limited design space to encourage creativity, but it’s a good rule to keep in general.

The most important aspect of this game is going to be the balance, something which I’m reasonably sure I’ll be able to make work mathematically. I want Scouting to be more valuable than the other two options when placed in a vacuum, so I’ll be balancing the point values around that notion.

Overall, the project is going nicely, and I’m excited to update you all next week with a finished game!

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, please visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

I want to design a bluffing game for more than two players, considering that Synergist is a two player game with purely strategy elements.

I’m imagining a dungeon crawler flavor, with the objective being to collect as many resources as possible.

The primary game element would be a set of cards with various encounters on them, each of which would have an effect depending on the way with which they were interacted.

However, all the cards that are interactive would be facedown, forcing the players to either spend their turn checking a given card first or simply taking the risk of interacting with something in a way that harms them. Classic risk versus reward game mechanics.

The bluffing elements come from the ability to check a card instead of immediately interacting with it. It’s not as strong of a bluffing presence as I wanted to include, but I enjoy the game concept enough that I’m willing to roll with it.

I’ll work on solidifying the concept this week, and make sure I get a more proper summation of the rules by then. I’ll see you next Sunday!

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

Week two of the 1v1 match game project, and we already have a name! (As you can probably tell.) I hope you’re ready for a comprehensive rule/flavor rundown, because this one is a doozy.

Synergist frames itself as a duel between two fighters in a world in which technology, magic, and martial prowess all compete for cultural prevalence.

As for how that works into gameplay, there are four available classes from which each player can choose, each of with abilities based on their flavor and benefits for matching their corresponding tokens.

The first three classes- the Tinkerer, the Magician, and the Combatant- focus on technology, magic, and martial prowess respectively, but there is an additional class, the eponymous Synergist, representing a balance in use of all the fighting styles.

There’s already a lot written and I haven’t even explained how the board and tokens are going to work. I might as well get right into it.

The board is a 5×5 grid, filled with tokens that come from an inverted deck, as to always show the next token to fill the board.

There are six types of token: three Style tokens and three Boost tokens. The three Style tokens correspond to the different fighting styles and deal damage to your opponent. The three Boost tokens are Attack, Shield, and Ability. Attack allows you to permanently upgrade the amount of damage you do with a type of Style token of your choice. Shield allows you to negate one attack caused by a type of Style token of your choice. Ability allows you to activate your ability.

It feels somewhat needless to explain the mechanics of a match three game, but I figure that, for the sake of game design considerations, I probably should.

You are only allowed to move tokens by swapping them with a token adjacent in a cardinal direction. If you create a vertical or horizontal line of three matching tokens with this movement, you remove all three of them and activate their effect according to the token type.

When you remove tokens, you can replace them with tokens from the deck, placing the tokens in any space that is empty. If you assemble another line of three matching tokens, you can remove it and activate their effect.

Okay, that was comprehensive, possibly to the point of overkill. I had fun though, and the game concept seems to be fleshing itself out well too. I’m happy to have gotten so far into the planning process as always, and I can’t wait to bring a finished product to the table next week!

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

Time for another game idea, huh. I was thinking of doing a social game but figured that I should mix it up a bit, considering that Medium Mix-Up, my last game, was a social game. I’ve decided to start working on an idea that I’ve been sitting on for a bit.

I want to make a 1v1 match three game. While the concept isn’t exactly groundbreaking, it’s always something I’ve wanted to see. There are so many match three games out there, yet none of them have versus elements. At the very least, it’ll be fun to put a new spin on a game design classic.

As for issues, there are a number of them. Foremost among them is how to make it an actual strategy beyond matching pieces and making sure you don’t set up your opponent. Always make sure to think beyond the primary gameplay loop. I’ll probably add characters which are stronger with certain matches and a shield system, both of which will add an element of selective matching.

I’m not quite sure how I’ll implement the board refill, but that’s a week two consideration.

I’m planning for the flavor to be magic again because fantasy is just generally awesome.

I’ll leave it at that for now as I consider all my options. Get ready for some exciting reports by week two!

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!

I think I may have overstepped on the explanation in the week one post, because I’m finding out that there’s not much to comment on in regards to the rules. However, that’s not going to stop me from commenting on the rules, and I’d like to talk about the flavor as well.

On the rules end of things, most of the stuff I said last week is accurate to what I’m actually going to write, but I think it makes sense to restate my plans in a more orderly form, with the flavor properly ironed out as a bonus.

The plan is that there will be at least four players, with a recommended cap of seven. Each player will be assigned a role, with one player receiving the role of the medium and the rest being spirits, which are broken up into two groups: the good and the evil. For every two evil spirits, there will be one good spirit.

The medium is working on a protection ritual, which requires that five symbols from an array of seven be placed into a specific order which only the spirits know. The good spirits are trying to assist the medium in matching the order, and the evil spirits are trying to make sure the order is as messed up as possible. Only the spirits know which of them are good and evil; the medium must find out during the ritual.

The spirits are able to talk with the medium to achieve their respective goals, and the medium must discover which spirits they can trust so they can safely complete the ritual.

The medium has three attempts to activate the ritual. After the first two attempts, they are allowed to ask about the nature of one of the symbols before them. The spirits must collectively and truthfully answer whether the symbol belongs in the ritual and if the symbol is in the proper place within the ritual.

The game is concluded when the medium either successfully matches the ritual to the necessary symbols or runs out of attempts before they can do so. If the medium successfully completes the ritual, then the medium and good spirits win, successfully sanctifying the area. If the medium runs out of attempts, the evil spirits win and are able to escape into the world, likely wreaking havoc upon the general populace.

That’s about it, really. I’ve described everything that I wanted to describe in the week two summary. Though not much has changed mechanically, I’m happy that the name and flavor managed to come together and that the rules and game balance seem workable.

If you enjoy our content, please like, share, subscribe, visit us on our social media, and check out the rest of our projects! Every little bit helps and we’d love for our content to be able to reach more people!