What is the "Design Space" and ???

Tue, 01/06/2026 - 20:21

#1

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

So how does this ANALYSIS work exactly???

Well the idea is to build up a LIST of POSSIBILITIES on the various components in the design. Obviously the LESS "elements" you have the HARDER it will be to make a design "enjoyable" or FUN ... Due to the simplicity of the design.

By adding to a simple design an "element" or two, you start to increase the difference in "elements" which can interact with each other allow you to AUDIT the design and see what can be added (or removed) to increase or reduce the complexity of the design.

This is the method used by "Wizards of the Coast" (WotC) when designing NEW "Magic: the Gathering" cards. First of all their "Design Space" is rather large even though there are not too many "elements" in the game. WotC also create RULES they set when designing new cards. And then a generation or two down-the-line ... They do the OPPOSITE and "Break the Rules" to create cards that go beyond what the initial "Design Space" was meant to do.

Some designers simply ADD stuff to their designs and DON'T do an EXHAUSTIVE Audit of the "Design Space" and so it becomes a better design by LUCK(?) or by analysis... Which do you think works better???

So the bottom line is that you're NOT WotC ... Your "elements" in your design are probably a whole lot less and IF you are struggling to figure out what you SHOULD ADD to a "design" see if you can add a MECHANIC first and then do an AUDIT of it and the rest of your design to see how it can boost the level of FUN created by your new design.

Try it if you don't believe me. You'll see soon enough that this kind of ANALYSIS is GREAT and works well with most designs.

Happy designing everyone!

Tue, 01/06/2026 - 21:05

#2

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

So let's be a bit more "exhaustive" when it comes to..

The Players and let's say we say that the RULE is from 2 to 4 Players for the design. That's ANOTHER RULE which we could break in a EXPANSION for example which could introduce more Trivia cards and provide more shelf room for the design.

And let's COMPARE two (2) "elements" concurrently (Yes being exhaustive is very difficult and WotC are masters at it...).

For example: Let's talk about the "Victory Track" (0 - 20) and Players (2 to 4) and what we get when we look at "Event" Cards are some more possibilities.

So we can have a Card which affects "ALL OPPONENTS" lose -1 Victory Point. This is a VERY POWERFUL "Event" indeed. We already have "Events" for the Player to gain +1 Point (we had a RULE that it could by ONLY by one...) but if there are 3 Players, "ALL OPPONENTS" means -3 Victory Points (-1 for each player).

Is it OVER... NOT YET! Let's say that for this "Trivia" game we CARE about WHERE(?) we sit at the table.

For example: Each player has a Player to his Right or Left in a 3 or 4 Player game.

Why is this at all important??? This opens up a bunch of possibilities to the distribution of points. We have:

- The player on the Right loses -1 Victory Points (in 3+ Player games)
- The player on the Left loses -1 Victory Points

Again still not BREAKING that "+/-1" RULE.

How are these "Events" DIFFERENT? Well with the original version the player who DRAWS that card decides WHO loses a Victory Point. In these examples, with the seating position, the control is left up to the configuration of the table not the players themselves.

This again is pretty simple "elements" and you'll find that the more you analyze your design ... The more "elements" you may find to exist and allow you to add MORE to the final piece of the "puzzle"!

For example: you can do the same exercise with "Skip a Turn", instead of giving the Player 100% control ... It can also be affected by the seating arrangement.

Are we DONE yet??? Like I said ... NO... Adding an "element" can have a HUGE impact. How so?? Well still basing ourselves on the "element" of PLAYERS (2 to 4), we can introduce two (2) MORE modifiers on AGE: Youngest and Oldest.

This means we can ADD "Cards" that deal with AGE TOO!

Let's say there is NO CONTROL once again... But this time let's explore the Victory Points.

For example: The Youngest Player earns +2 Victory Points if he can answer the NEXT "Easy Question". And there you go we BROKE the "+/-1" RULE. It didn't take too long before we concluded that such a breaking of the rules was necessary. Why? It's simple, if you already EARN +1 Victory Points for a CORRECT ANSWER... The next possible REWARD would be +2 Victory Points.

Believe it or not... This METHOD is VERY GOOD. Even if you are NOT a MASTER at it... You'll see this type of ANALYSIS helps IMMENSELY when you start to look at your game from the INSIDE OUT.

Sincerely.

Tue, 01/06/2026 - 21:42

#3

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

How has this impacted my OWN designs???

Well one card game that I am working on has a very LIMITED "amount" of "elements" in it. As such I've had to create cards and using this method with 32 Abilities I have managed to create over 175 variations on those Abilities.

This takes a immature card game ... Into something MUCH MORE STRATEGIC and (even if I'm not 100% done yet) I can picture the game being played even if the DESIGN is not yet finished.

All I have ATM is an Excel Spreadsheet with 32 Abilities and 175 cards no prototype (not even that). And I'm still working with the "Design Space" to come up with either more "Abilities" or ways of using a basic card.

If I find ONE (1) NEW "method" of manipulating a card that adds another Ability or sometimes MORE than one Ability ... Could be 2 or 3 ... Depending on the nature of the Ability and how it affects the Deck.

So even I "dabble" with this method of ANALYSIS and I can successfully say that it HELPS ME when I design my own games. This is a method that I learned through reading and research over the years (listening to Podcasts from Mark Rosewater from the MtG Team) and it cleared up my designing and has made it much more "mechanical" and "methodical" too. It's an APPROACH much like Procedural Programming versus Object Oriented Programming... It's a different PARADIGM and like I said it works on designs that are not EVEN "prototypes" yet!

You can take something VERY informal like a "Deck of Cards" and then add a couple elements to it and soon enough you have a broader more complete "design" to start to prototype or even just do more iterations and add more "elements" that are still very BASIC and your design can flourish without too much troubles.

Again ... News for some, others have seen and heard this methodology. Like I said from an Analytical perspective ... It's amazing how designing with purpose given a "Design Space", how you can grow even a SIMPLE design into something most people will want to play.

And please note that I did NOT know this method of analysis when I designed TradeWorlds: Exterra Edition. That was a bit of more analysis in looking at OTHER games and what was out-there and where I could fit in with something NOVEL. Harder to do ... Because there are always NEW games coming out on the market to be constantly aware of all of "that mess" ... Is hard to do even if you have a great memory.

In any case, I hope this HELPS some of you designers and that you take away something you can TRY and see how it works for you!

Best.

Tue, 01/06/2026 - 22:15

#4

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I think WotC use software to MANAGE their catalog

To be real honest... Although this method is GREAT for iterating and improve a design... I am VERY "doubtful" that WotC don't have some kind of SOFTWARE or AI to manage their catalog of cards. Why? Because over 27,000+ cards with unique names that's like way too much to handle as a "Design Space". Even with "Context" ... You'd still need to have some kind of SOFTWARE that can divide the "Design Space" into a subset of itself from which Designer can then ponder how to release their next set of cards.

Because if you think of it... I don't think it is HUMANLY possible to manage 27,000+ unique cards without some form of computing or AI. Maybe some early kind of AI or some advanced Query Engine that can yield an ACCURATE SET and specify the "Context" that is being looked at when a NEW card is being added to the catalog.

I know some people have HUGE brains... But the question is IDK anyone who has the entire Magic: the Gathering Catalog up in their minds. Hehehe... Not even Mark has that kind of mental capabilities.

So there must be some kind of SOFTWARE or Query Engine which allows them to collect and BATCH cards and compare NEW ideas with OLD ones. I would also guess that somewhere in some kind of Database lies a RULES database... Which is all the RULES that need to be followed when designing NEW cards for the Catalog...

I mean if you think about it... It makes sense... As you can probably compare cards that observe a RULE and which RULES govern a card and then see if it is time to create a NEW card which breaks the rule when comparing all OTHER cards that are governed by that SAME rule.

See... It's pretty tough. From any angle. Especially when dealing with so much history and rules...

In any event. I hope this may give some designers a bit of a perspective to see and figure out the complexity of their designs using a different approach.

Cordially.

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 11:52

#5

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

I read the thread in

I read the thread in diagonal, but I know the subject very well. I want to add a few touches. First I used to call it the "area of effect", now I call it the "possibility space". Think if it as all the possible effect that can target a component in the game.

There is 2 type of effect in games, A) status changers: changes the state of the game. Some components or values will have to change. This is very common in video games because you only change the value of a variable while in board games you need components to keep track of those variables. B) Rule breakers: Changes the way certain rules are applied. This is very common in board games because in video games it requires custom programming.

The smaller, the less components a game have, the smaller the possibility space. Its like trying different furniture configuration in a small room. If you think of a game like tic-tac-toe or 3 men morris, you can add, remove, swap or move pawns on the board and that is about it. To increase the possibility space, you need to add more components, or make the components more complex (they now have a strength number and a type), board spaces could have additional information like a number, a terrain, etc. So more data is yields more possibility. More components and more position components can occupy (ex: zones) also yield more possibilities.

Abilities can also be complexified. When I designed duel master mechanics, I identified the following A) passive: ability triggers only during a certain condition (ex: combat) mostly rule breakers, B) active or trigger, the ability triggers when the element is put it play, removed from play, tapped, etc. Mostly status changer abilities. C)Conditions: You can complexify those abilities by making them not active all the time by forcing a certain condition to be met before activating (ex: There needs to be 3 cards on the board to activate)

There is 2 approach, the bottom up approach which is try to determine all the possible effects each component can receive. This can be necessary if the possibility space is small, but it can be very annoying to do, and you could miss some ideas. The top bottom approach consist in using thematic ideas, and trying to convert them into the rule system. Using AI to generate different effect ideas could at some point create an effect that could not be anticipated with the bottom up approach.

I am still impressed how magic the gathering managed to make that many card. The card themselves are really simple, they only have: Casting cost, type, strength, health. That's it. How to design 30K cards with that? I know that the cards are designed for 4 stereotype of players, they have names, look it up. I doubt they are using AI to generate cards because many of those cards were created before ai existed.

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 16:53

#6

Steve

Offline

Joined: 07/29/2008

Design Philosophy?

I'm not quite sure that I follow what is being conveyed but my understanding is that this is another method of design philosophy.

My preference is to always make a game as simple as it can be while still allowing for a sufficient amount of choice. All games involve choice and, without it, all that you have is CANDYLAND (sorry, couldn't resist the dig).

The question ultimately becomes, how much choice do you want your game to have in order for the players to accomplish their goal? Anyone can make a game more complex but complexity doesn't necessarily add more fun. "Fun" for the sake of this topic, is the amount of progress that you generate based on the number of activities performed. For instance, "Grind" is the opposite of "Fun" since Grind involves a lot of activity for very little progress. However, "Cheating" is the exact opposite: It gives you a lot of progress for very little (if any) activity.

In my mind, a game designer needs to understand what the GOAL of their game is and then set about what ACTIVITIES the players need to make in order to accomplish PROGRESS towards that GOAL.

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 18:33

#7

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Not AI as we know it today ... But

larienna wrote:

I am still impressed how magic the gathering managed to make that many cards... I doubt they are using AI to generate cards because many of those cards were created before AI existed.

Just because AI was not available to everyone as it is accessible nowadays does not mean that SOME companies had their OWN "version" of what we commonly know as AI today.

I was very clear in that I believe that WotC have some kind of Database for cards and rules and they must have an advanced Query Engine that allows them to pull out a subset of cards given a "rule" or a "preset type" allowing them to examine in detail "one type of card" and how they are going to make a variation for a new card given the set that they already have.

I'm not saying it's AI like we know today. But it's some kind of powerful and flexible "database search engine" which allows them to COLLECT cards that are "functionally" the same.

***

Secondly I would not "coin" my own term. It's called "Design Space" you can google it and you'll find Magic articles about it and you can also find Podcasts by Mark Rosewater. If you have your own "terminology", like "possibility space" well I would recommend using the correct term as define by the Magic masters and it is defined as the outcome of all possible versions given a specific context.

@Steve it's a "design paradigm". For someone who says "I find designing games HARD" well this is one approach (called "Design Space") which allows you to expand or contract any game you are designing. It requires you to be analytical and methodical (you need to think a lot about a set of "elements" available in your game) and you need to do repeated attempts (iterations).

Again I would not change the name of the "philosophy" as it has a definite name and is still in use to this day. Call it a "paradigm" or an "approach" or a "philosophy" ... It's a way to design games which deals with exhaustive auditing of the "elements" that you have in a design.

***

Lastly while @larienna says that Magic has very few "elements" that is NOT necessarily true. Because their cards are rather COMPLICATED. And have a bunch of information and "data" used in the game, even if they are only "cards" and Deck of 60 to 100 cards, they have a color pie and playstyles as you have noted. The cards themselves have a wealth of information that creates even more "possibilities" (as you like to say).

@larienne is already an experienced designer with dozens of designs and ideas that he has worked on. He probably has more experience than I ... And I know for sure he's got way more "ideas" than do I (when it comes to personal designs and what I have or am currently working on). I probably have about 10 designs in total. @larienne must have more (from my understanding).

***

That's just a follow-up. I would simply recommend to use the right "term" and that it's called "Design Space". I didn't coin the term... It could have been Mark Rosewater or Richard Garfield himself. Either way it's right to use the correct name ... Otherwise people may get confused.

Cheers all.

Note #1: I will refrain from using the NAME of the card game that I am working on because someone already TOOK a name that I've been using since 2021 for another one of my designs and THEIR game is not even published... Says in 2027 but they reserved the GAME NAME. It frustrating when you do analysis into games and find a NAME and then someone copies you and uses the name (at least in terms of registration) before you ... Even though your game has been in development for many more years.

So like I said I have 32 Abilities and about 175 cards. Some of my ideas around the game are "crystalizing" (becoming more clear) and it may mean that some of those 32 Abilities may need some EDITING and revision.

Why am I saying this??? Well it's because this DEMONSTRATES the "iterative" nature of the approach and that while you can pump out a LOT of content and be like "Wow ... This game is HUGE!" And rightfully it is so... There still is more designing to do and therefore more revisions and iterations to occur.

But this approach HELPS designer to FOCUS and THINK about what it is they are introducing into their "design". That's all I wanted to add...

Note #2: Mark defines the "Design Space" as being:

Mark Rosewater wrote:

The basic idea is how many cards could you make with a mechanic?

And there it is... Talking about cards, ideas and mechanics.

Note #3: This doesn't REQUIRE "cards" but can also include other "elements" in a design too. Mark says cards because that's all Magic is. But in other games there are other "elements" that come into play which allow you to experiement further with a "design"...

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 19:42

#8

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Also ...

You may find that when examining one particular subset of "elements" that you have CHEAP extensions. The kind of stuff like "+/-" 1 or more possibilities and that can add to your count of possibilities.

I call them "CHEAP" because had you not done an "exhaustive" Audit of your "elements", you would not REALIZE that you could have some EASY to "design" possibilities.

Again when I say "CHEAP" I mean EASY TO DESIGN and create RULES for. Not the meaning that they are "inexpensive" but more that they are simpler in design...

Like the +1 or -1 Victory Points on a Victory Track. Simple and sets up the RULE that "+/-" ONE (1) Victory Points... You can break that rule later when you have a scenario which requires you to do so...

Cheers.

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 20:29

#9

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Daytime and Nighttime Mechanics

questccg wrote:

Lastly while @larienna says that Magic has very few "elements" that is NOT necessarily true. Because their cards are rather COMPLICATED. And have a bunch of information and "data" used in the game, even if they are only "cards" and Deck of 60 to 100 cards, they have a color pie and playstyles as you have noted. The cards themselves have a wealth of information that creates even more "possibilities" (as you like to say).

Just examine the "Daytime and "Nighttime" mechanics in Magic. They rely on BOTH sides of the cards to perform properly.

Alternatively ... Instead of relying on BOTH sides, you could have to COLLECT two (2) CARDS and when "Daytime" is PLAYED... This allows you to SEARCH your Deck and find the "Nighttime" card and place it in your had and have it handy when required.

There are ALREADY cards that allow you to SEARCH your Deck... So I don't see why this could not have been a possibility.

But the Mechanic in this case was "Day/Night" Mechanic of "Reversible" cards.

Like I said, there could have been alternate ways to have something SIMILAR but less "obvious".

Sincerely.

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 20:59

#10

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down

larienna wrote:

There is 2 approach, the bottom up approach which is try to determine all the possible effects each component can receive. This can be necessary if the possibility space is small, but it can be very annoying to do, and you could miss some ideas. The top bottom approach consist in using thematic ideas, and trying to convert them into the rule system. Using AI to generate different effect ideas could at some point create an effect that could not be anticipated with the bottom up approach.

I really don't think the Top-Down Method using "Thematic" ideas is very exhaustive. You could easily forget "elements" that would lead to small subsets of "possibilities". The Audit method from Bottom-Up forces you to THINK(!) about your game and the "elements" in it. You may not be 100% exhaustive when you do try this method... But as you train your brain to think in this way... You'll eventually get a SET of "elements" and what is commonly possible between designs allowing you to become more "specific" for each subsequent design.

Just remember that the GOAL is to have as much information about the "elements" in your design such that you can EXPAND your design into more details about those specific "elements".

Cheers.

Thu, 01/08/2026 - 17:27

#11

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

In the first few sets of

In the first few sets of magic the gathering, they did not even though about balancing abilities with casting cost.

"It's called "Design Space" you can google it and you'll find Magic articles about it and you can also find Podcasts by Mark Rosewater"

I did not know there was an official name for it now. When I talked about it many years ago on BGG, I talked about "area of effects" and people said it would make more sense to call it "possibility space". As long as we think the same thing.

The goal of this design space is mostly for games with special powers. It reminds me of a user that joined this forum once and wanted to make a 50000 cards game. That would be impracticable, at least not at once, because you need to have a game with a possibility space big enough to have that many unique cards. If you do not have special powers, or very few, possibility/design space is not an issue to bother with.

I also had this issue with trying to make a master of magic board game. The possibility space is too small to have status changer effects in a board game. Most civ board games have rule breakers, so one of the compromise was to make all spells enchantments that you could substitute over time. So basically, you get X rule breaker abilities that you can change. This is to comply with civ games that mostly uses rule breakers like: Pocket civ, clash of cultures, etc.

So far, the only solution I could came up with is to have some sort of civilization 5 single city civilization system to have enough details to implement enough spells for the game to be possible. In theory, it could work. Else it must be a video game.

"@larienna is already an experienced designer with dozens of designs and ideas that he has worked on. He probably has more experience than I ... And I know for sure he's got way more "ideas" than do I (when it comes to personal designs and what I have or am currently working on). I probably have about 10 designs in total. @larienna must have more (from my understanding)."

Wow! you make me look more cool that I actually am. But yes I have too much ideas (easily 100+), so much that I forget about many them. They have different levels of maturity. I think the real challenge is not to have ideas, but being able to bring that idea up to the finish line which is my biggest problem. I'll see if AI can get me organized to do so.

I still don't understand how MTG made that many cards. I know they can add keywords and make other cards interact with them. For example, I think in mtg they are Slivers, in Duel Masters they are Survivors: "A monster get a special ability and give this special ability to all other creatures which has that keyword". So you get an exponential growth on monsters.

Sentinels of the multiverse is another game with lot of unique abilities, I own all the digital expansions on steam. Each character has a unique deck of cards and the rules are very simple: On each turn: play a card then use a power. That's it. But the variety of abilities that can be made with just that is very interesting. Each character plays in a different way.

Even if special abilities are really cool and well "special" they are a nightmare to predict and balance. Same thing with deck building. This is why I am considering limiting the amount of time I use those abilities to prevent very chaotic games. Unless I can find a solid way to test and balance those kind of games.

Top down approach could still work, but it might needs to be done differently. Using Ai, you can spam ideas in different directions then apply them to your game. The ideas will require you to expand or grow the complexity of your game to open possibilities that were not available before. ChatGPT quoted something like: "Add a mechanics if it interacts with at least 2 other mechanics". Using the bottom up approach, it is more boring, and you have to stay close the mechanics system of your game. If your mechanics are solid, and you do not want to diverge from it, fine. But if you want to explore the theme instead and change the mechanics, use the top bottom approach.

Thu, 01/08/2026 - 18:41

#12

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

You are one cool dude!

larienna wrote:

Wow! you make me look more cool that I actually am. But yes I have too much ideas (easily 100+), so much that I forget about many them. They have different levels of maturity. I think the real challenge is not to have ideas, but being able to bring that idea up to the finish line which is my biggest problem.

You are the coolest Game Designer that I've ever actually met. Thibaud de la Touanne who designed V-Commandos (or now V-Sabotage) is probably in 2nd. You have way more creative input that he does even though he did publish a version of his Miniatures game for "Assassin's Creed" which KS-ed into the MILLIONS ($1.3 Million)... So he is probably the most successful Game Designer that I know of... But he just re-skinned the Miniatures Rules he had for the Ubisoft game.

But clearly in terms of "coolness", I would say you @larienna. Your opinion on most matters is spot on and you keep getting more new ideas. That's great... I guess your biggest hurdle is "developing" those ideas into solid games. I find that MOST ideas take a lot of "effort" to perfect. The "ideas" sound GREAT... But then when you start working on making a prototype or working towards one, you encounter all kinds of issues or "challenges". It's NEVER easy. And that's where the "Design Space" helps me FOCUS on what I am working on and how I can IMPROVE it.

In French wrote:

T'as toujours des bonnes idees et c'est prime ce que le gens qui recherchent disent qu'ils leurs manque c'est des bonnes idees!

Anyhow .. Kudos to you for being so COOL! And I would try to develop a few of your games by seeing which is the MOST NOVEL ideas and what could gain the most traction: ABC = "Always Be Closing!"

Cheers.

Thu, 01/08/2026 - 19:56

#13

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Dymino Monsters by Jesse Fernandez

larienna wrote:

The goal of this design space is mostly for games with special powers. It reminds me of a user that joined this forum once and wanted to make a 50000 cards game. That would be impracticable, at least not at once, because you need to have a game with a possibility space big enough to have that many unique cards. If you do not have special powers, or very few, possibility/design space is not an issue to bother with.

Yeah I think the person you are talking about is @stormyknight1976 (Jesse Fernandez)... Yeah he was using "cue cards" and was designing all kind of cards for his "Role Playing" Novel Card Game. I really don't know how he was designing them... Was it just the name? Or did he have Stats already?? I really don't know... TBH! I haven't seen @stormyknight1976 around for a while ... Maybe he is busy working on his Card Game... I really don't know! The game was called "Dymino Monsters" and his last update was April 2024. It's going to be around 2 Years since we've heard from him.

He seemed really sure that he was going to spend his time working on that game of his and he did so for YEARS. So I don't know why(???) he just disappeared like most other users considering he had a LOT to work on...

Anyhow... Yeah I remember this 50,000+ card game and well ... IDK what is the status since he's officially on hiatus since 2024.

Sun, 01/11/2026 - 19:20

#14

Noah McQ

Offline

Joined: 09/06/2025

Good Thread

questccg wrote:

"Design Space"...elements...shelf room

larienna wrote:

"possibility space"...status changers...rule breakers

Steve wrote:

"Grind"..."Fun"..."Cheating"

Yeah! Designer-specific terminology! Now THIS is what I signed up for!

It's so interesting to hear that everyone has had a similar concept to Design Space. I imagine it's because it's intrinsic to consciously-created game elements. The real insight is questccg's exhaustive, methodical analysis of how much Design Space is created by new elements, which sounds exhausting haha.

Personally, I don't think I had a name for Design Space. I think I called it something like "room to fiddle around". I do have a name for Larienne's "status changers" and "rule breakers", which I call "quantitative changes" and "qualitative changes" respectively.

What I'd really like is a concise definition of Design Space. "Total possibilities for interaction between game elements"? Is that good?

Sun, 01/11/2026 - 21:42

#15

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Not sure if this counts or is correct.

Noah McQ wrote:

Yeah! Designer-specific terminology! Now THIS is what I signed up for!

Good thing I didn't mix in my crap yet. Right? ç:
When it comes to terminology, I am the absolute worst.

As for the topic at hand:
I wonder, the contents of a rule book...Counts too right?

But other than that. I always try to see synergies. A synergy is a fun way of having 2 or more components work together. And the result is greater than the sum of this. MtG has this a lot.

Perhaps, connecting the dots is a way to look at it all. And I am a guy that sees the world in math and numbers.

If you have components like in my game. And how they relate to each other. The more connections you have, the better. But several questions remain:
- Do the components affect each other or only in 1 way?
- Can it add synergy or not?
- Do you need multiple components to work together in order to affect another component?

So, if I really think about it. I have 6 components in my game:
- Event Cards
- Resource Gathering
- Action Points (AP)
- Strategy Points (SP)
- Production Facilities
- Combat Objects

How many connections do I even have?
- Event Cards: Can increase Resource Gathering, increase AP, increase Combat Objects and decrease these 3 for the opponent(s).
- Resource Gathering: Makes Production Facilities work.
- AP: Works with Combat Objects.
- SP: Can increase AP.
- Production Facilities: Makes itself and Combat Objects.
- Combat Objects: Can increase SP. Destroys Resource Gathering, Production Facilities and Combat Objects for the opponent(s).

There is synergy when:
- Event Cards increase AP and Combat Objects on which the AP is spend.
- Event Cards increase Resource Gathering and thus increase Combat Objects in number.
- SP increase AP. SP comes from "bad" designs. And "good" designs benefit more from AP. Indirectly, a "bad" design increases the efficiency of a "good" design.

Wow, now that I think about it. I hardly have a proper web here. With 6 components, the maximum connections possible is 15. And if they would go both ways, 30. If a component is working with itself, it is even 21 or both ways, 42. Yet I count only 12, and then 3 synergy connections. Even though the latter goes a way around.

I probably misunderstood the whole assignment here.

And what about a map? That is design space as well, right?

Sun, 01/11/2026 - 22:50

#16

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Not wrong, just incomplete!

X3M wrote:

So, if I really think about it. I have 6 components in my game:
- Event Cards
- Resource Gathering
- Action Points (AP)
- Strategy Points (SP)
- Production Facilities
- Combat Objects

Those are too generic... I believe YOUR "Design Space" is more complex. Why? Or How? Well you state Combat Objects... Do they have STATS or Abilities??? Because each one of the "elements" is part of the "Design Space".

From my example of a "Trivia Game" with a Linear Track and a Deck of Questions, we went into your Wargame... And it's not that easy. @Noah McQ may laugh at the fact that an "exhausting" AUDIT is not the best approach... Your approach is Top-Down like @larienna suggested.

But (and @larienna can observe too..) it's too general. "Elements" are numbers or abilities or STATS or anything that a Combat Object HAS. That's why the SAFER route is Bottom-Up like the entire AUDIT to analyze EVERYTHING in the "Design Space". As Mark Rosewater states (and I repeat it):

Mark Rosewater wrote:

The basic idea is how many cards could you make with a mechanic?

Because Magic is ONLY cards. So your "Combat Objects" have extra "elements" same as your "Production Facilities" and your "Event Cards"... It's really quite the opposite of Top-Down, in that you NEED to analyze and decrypt every "element" for each component.

And I'm positive you must have over 300(?) it's a guestimate but it could be even HIGHER too. APs and SPs are basic "elements", so you can have an "Event" which triggers BONUS APs or SPs and you can define rules based on relative common sense: like "+/-" "1" APs or "+/-" "1" SPs. As an example. This is not complete just an example. And then figure out that another "Event" could trigger "+2 APs" or "+2" SPs.

But then your "Combat Objects" definitely have more "elements" like "Attack Power" and all of a sudden you can have an "Event" which triggers +1 "Attack Power".

So it's an EXHAUSTIVE research to figure out ALL the "elements" in the Design to determine the REAL "Design Space".

***

You did NOT do it wrong... You just did not do it EXHAUSTIVELY. And therefore a Bottom-Up approach is more accurate to encourage each "component" that has several "elements" in it ... All be taken into consideration.

And then you determine all the possible RELATIONSHIPS that go into the design and make up the ENTIRE "Design Space"!

Cheers.

Sun, 01/11/2026 - 23:04

#17

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

More on the RULES...

And let's just ASSUME that for one minute your "Combat Objects" have an "Attack Power". And you want to setup a SMART RULE for them. You would ANALYZE your database and figure out that AT MINIMUM a "Combat Object" has "3 Attack Power".

Meaning the LOWEST possible "Attack Power" = 3.

Then we can determine an accurate RULE which is "Attack Power" cannot be Penalized for more than -3 (in value). Because we want values of ZERO (0) and up...

Minimum an "Event" could do is "-3" Attack Power. The Positive Bonus has yet to be determined ... But we setup a SMART RULE that ensure no NEGATIVE numbers for our "Combat Objects" Attack Power.

Again this is only one data point ("element") and I made some assumptions given that I DON'T know all the details for your Wargame...

Best!

Sun, 01/11/2026 - 23:47

#18

Noah McQ

Offline

Joined: 09/06/2025

X3M wrote:With 6 components,

X3M wrote:

With 6 components, the maximum connections possible is 15...Yet I count only 12

I see what you mean with the 15 possible connections from a list of 6.

Quote:

Event Cards-Resource Gathering, Event Cards-AP, Event Cards-SP, Event Cards-Production Facilities, Event Cards-Combat Objects, Resource Gathering-AP, Resource Gathering-SP, Resource Gathering-Production Facilities, Resource Gathering-Combat Objects, AP-SP, AP-Production Facilities, AP-Combat Objects, SP-Production Facilities, SP-Combat Objects, Production Facilities-Combat Objects

I'm always proud of myself when I understand your mathematics. Anyway, it looks like you may have only implemented 12 of these 15 interactions, like you didn't mention that Event Cards can alter SP. If you WANTED to, I know you could make cards that affect SP, but I bet you have only those 12 connections on purpose. Also "connections", more designer-specific terminology!

In fact, I think having these 15 possible connections is exactly what Design Space is. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, @questccg)

X3M wrote:

And what about a map? That is design space as well, right?

The map totally has to bring in more Design Space! I believe that your game has rivers and stuff in it, so that means you could have Event Cards that like, freeze over the river, or you could let players spend extra AP for their infantry to swim extra fast. Design Space. Probably.

X3M wrote:

Noah McQ wrote:

Yeah! Designer-specific terminology! Now THIS is what I signed up for!

Good thing I didn't mix in my crap yet. Right? ç:
When it comes to terminology, I am the absolute worst.

Haha I love to see it. Synergy, connections... fascinating

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 07:08

#19

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Almost

My understanding of the theory
What I meant is that with 6 components, there are 15 one way connections possible. And allow me to use "element" from now on.

Let's say, we have elements A and B.
There is 1 connection possible.
A to B. Or B to A.
Both ways, in my eyes, should count as 2 connections.
There is a hidden connection as well. What if an element influences itself?
In that case, A to A and B to B. Might be possible again.

So, with 2 elements, we have 4 possible connections.
And I think that I calculated my 42 wrong. It looks like that the number of connections is supposed to be 36 there. I counted A to A double by mistake.
Simply take the number of elements to the power of 2, voila, you got yourself the maximum number of connections.

Ok, that was just theory. And correct me if the basics are still wrong.

***

My hobby game (example of an abomination)
As for every statistic being an element itself...wow, I sure have a lot of elements. Cost, Armor, Health, Speed....And most of them are connected to the board as well.

The Event Cards have a cost as well, but that is only applied on themselves. And it is correct to say that they can change most elements of the statistics.

Speaking of attributes. An attribute is more or less like an extra rule.

As for the board. Each region has some properties. Type of region has connection to movement, positioning and attack range.

And why do I name that last one specifically? Well, there are designs that can HOP over water.

***

What about attributes and rules?
Back to attributes and thus a little new rule to a game.
Is every rule of the game an element as well? Or is this simply more of a change of the rules in regards of the connection between elements. After all, a connection in my wording, is actually how they influence each other. And the way of influence is a, RULE.

So, can attributes be both an element and a rule?

***

Design process
Is it safe to say that when you start designing a game. You immediately track every element that you have. And keep track of all connections?

And you try to make as much connections as possible in order make the game more complex with as little as material and rules as possible?

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:08

#20

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

About V-Commandos: Yes, I

About V-Commandos: Yes, I play tested his game in a late phase. It was interesting, but I think in the end having hoard of enemies flooding the board made is more tedious than interesting. This is why I ended up not trying to trade for it. But the game mechanics was really interesting. I gave him some suggestion to reduce the randomness of the loot around the map using loot categories or ranks.

Certain synergies are easier to design because they are elements of different nature interacting with each other. For example, you add weather to a war game. It can interact with movement and combat rolls.

But some synergies are more complicated, like making 2 units work better on the battlefield together. The interaction could be implicit: Scout increase vision range for artillery to attack. This is hard to design and requires intensive testing to see those synergies emerge. Else you have explicit synergies: When unit A and B are in the same battle, you get a bonus. This was my approach for my ratscraft game that is not about rats anymore.

Possibility space example:

As for the possibility space, lets take a simple war game with attack and defense value on an hex map using die roll. Think of if I had spells to change how the game behave, what can I do:

1: I can Improve or reduce the stats of one or multiple units on the board.
2: I can change the position, add or remove units from the board.
3: I can improve or decrease the movement of units on the board.
4: I can break rules, make certain modifiers apply or not. For example, if there is flanking or join attack bonus, you can negate those.
5: If terrain has impact on the rules, like movement and cover, I can change the effect, boost or debuff, of those terrain modifiers.
6: You could change the turn order and sequence of play: Play twice in a row, command more units in a turn, etc.

I think that is somewhat the possibility space that I can see so far. Some of you might see new categories. Some categories would require additional components.

For example, if I add status effect tokens, I can make some of the effects above permanent on units or terrain (ice river). If units have a reduced side, you can have effects that flips token (heal or wound) or negate effects of reduced side, etc.

This is why a master of magic board game has been so difficult to achieve. Theoretically, so far, the only solutions I found is to have either a more complex game but limited scale (only 1 city), or either more limited spell list.

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 14:07

#21

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

You get for what you give

X3M wrote:

Design process
Is it safe to say that when you start designing a game. You immediately track every element that you have. And keep track of all connections?

And you try to make as much connections as possible in order make the game more complex with as little as material and rules as possible?

Yes is the short answer.

Why(?) is the more interesting answer.

And depending on the game, you might have a limited amount of components. Like a Deck of Cards and you need to MAKE this deck be USEFUL or PURPOSEFUL. That's when you look at the "Design Space" so that you can figure out everything that is possible to COMPLETE the Deck.

Sometimes you will encounter SIMPLE relationships you had not seen before. I know it sounds DUMB "+/-" 1 APs are obvious but sometimes you don't see them and the Design Space helps flesh them out so you can build a more comprehensive Deck of cards.

Like I said, since I've learnt this "methodology" I use it regularly and it does help a lot to ENUMERATE what can be done with say the "Event Deck" for example.

Now while we are on the subject. Let's say your "Combat Objects" DID have an "Attack Power" and the lowest value is "3". Therefore the maximum PENALTY can be "-3" Attack Power.

This is therefore THREE (3) Cards:

-1 Attack Power
-2 Attack Power
-3 Attack Power

Sometimes you only THINK in terms of the MAXIMUM. Because the RULE is "-3" is the maximum penalty, you MIGHT overlook the -2 and -1 Attack Power cards.

Let's say that you establish that the MAXIMUM Attack Power is "9"... And you are willing to add "+6" Attack Power for a boosted maximum of "15" Attack Power again these a RULES and guidelines you are setting to HELP determine the Design Space.

That means that you have SIX (6) cards:

+1 Attack Power
+2 Attack Power
+3 Attack Power
+4 Attack Power
+5 Attack Power
+6 Attack Power

So we have now a TOTAL of NINE (9) different modifiers we've created with just a few elements. And we have THREE (3) RULES that we've defined.

***

This shows you that an AUDIT (or pre-planned too!) when done correctly will give you all kinds of EXTRA possibilities to look at. You're going to say that my EXAMPLE is "stupid". It is very SIMPLE and I chose it that way just to better explain the "Design Space" Principles. We haven't done MUCH and ALREADY we have NINE (9) Modifiers.

Like I said, I chose a SIMPLE example because I didn't want to be bogged down with semantics. Just an EXAMPLE to illustrate that from nearly NOTHING all of a sudden we have WAY more possibilities...

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 14:40

#22

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Let me throw in a WRENCH just to Fnck things up! Haha.

X3M wrote:

- Action Points (AP)
- Strategy Points (SP)

Remember I said that those POINTs were basic "elements"... Kinda like RAW.

GET READY ... IT'S GOING TO GET ROCKY! Hehehe.

What if now I BLENDED Action Points (APs) with "Attack Points"??? You're going to be like WTF is that?!?!

-3 Attack Points BUT +3 Action Points
-3 Attack Points BUT +2 Action Points
-3 Attack Points BUT +1 Action Points
-2 Attack Points BUT +3 Action Points
-2 Attack Points BUT +2 Action Points
-2 Attack Points BUT +1 Action Points
-1 Attack Points BUT +3 Action Points
-1 Attack Points BUT +2 Action Points
-1 Attack Points BUT +1 Action Points

See how MESSY it gets. But IF you NEED more "possibilities" like @larienna says... We've gone from 3 to 12 possibilities.

Obviously you're going to say... "Do I need ALL of this???" Well that's not the role as the Developer you strive for. Your GOAL was to make your Deck more meaningful. You could add Strategy Points (SPs) and we'd be having an even WILDER time. Hehehe.

What's the LOGIC??? Whatever you MAKE of it.

So let's look at this LAST MINUS Attack Points and PLUS Action Points. Maybe these are some kind of SACRIFICE/SUPPORT abilities. Meaning you take a hit at a Combat Objects ATTACK POINTS in return for more ACTION POINTS such that another Combat Object can use the additional APs to maybe attack AGAIN a second time during a turn. Or simply put the APs can get added to maybe ALLOW another Combat Object to ATTACK on that turn (one that requires more APs).

Finding meaning is sometimes more challenging... But I'm sure you SEE HOW WotC use this methodology to create a BUNCH of cards.

Why does all this sh!t matter???

Where the KEY is... is COST. So "-3" Attack Power is more useful that "-1" Attack Power and you are going to say: "Why do I need both?" Well the answer is COST to use. In MtG you have the converted Mana Costs... Maybe your Strategy Points (SPs) are like Mana. You have a limited amount of them per turn and each operation you perform requires SPs.

I'm just explaining a bit. I may not be 100% accurate to your game.

And then it gets even WILDER if you consider BOTH YOU and THE OPPONENT. Why? Because the "Sacrifice/Support" could be like "Drain/Boost".

Meaning "-3" Attack Points but "+3" Action Points is like a DRAIN on the opponent and acts like a BOOST for YOU.

So it's "9" cards and becomes 2x so it's now "18" cards... Hehehe.

Plus the original "3" = 18 + 3 = 21 possibilities.

Of course you don't need to have ALL of them. I'm just being thorough this time to show you how quickly you can have more possibilities and really RAMP UP a potential deck.

The KEY is to remember HOW(?) each of them is of value: converted costs.

Higher PENALTIES to the opponent cost more than Sacrificial Penalties for bonus Actions cost very little and can be beneficial too (And can STACK too!)

***

I'm very proud of that example... Because it YIELDS exactly what I was trying so hard to demonstrate. It really is a NEAT methodology.

Cheers all.

Wed, 01/21/2026 - 13:07

#23

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

One thing that can help

One thing that can help define the possibility space or at least easily see it, is by trying to do a digital implementation of the mechanics.

I had a chat with AI, with how to implement cards like in "slay the spire" without hard coding each card. The basic principle to use encode the card's behavior with data, and hope that data to be simple enough.

In a game in design, I resolved to using 1 keyword + 1 value. Basically and action at a certain levels. Then combinations of those pair could yield different behaviors.

As for a slay the spire like card game, cards becomes a kind of mini program which is not a script. It's just a list of effect to apply at specific game phase. You can optionally add conditions.

EffectInstance:

trigger
condition (optional)
actions[]

Triggers are events

OnPlay
OnSummon
OnDeath
OnTurnStart
OnEnterTile
OnAttackDeclared

Here an example it generated from slay the spire mechanics (sorry for the formatting)

{ "trigger": "OnTurnEnd", "condition": { "type": "CardInHand" }, "actions": [ { "type": "ExhaustSelf" } ] }

same principle for status effect

Example: Weak { "trigger": "OnDamageDealt", "actions": [ { "type": "MultiplyDamage", "factor": 0.75 } ] } Expire it with: { "trigger": "OnTurnEnd", "actions": [ { "type": "DecreaseStacks", "amount": 1 } ] }

So that could be one way of defining the possibility space, try to define all possible behavior using only a set of data. But unless you are familiar with databases or computer programming, it could be hard to restrain yourself correctly.

Thu, 01/22/2026 - 00:43

#24

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Hmm... I see your angle ... But!

The triggers which are EVENTS are much more "exhaustive" than that. Moreover it is those "triggers" that are Mechanic-based which allow a larger catalog of outcomes. Each time you add a NEW event, you must re-evaluate the "set" of outcomes because you will have a bunch more new outcomes in regards to the previous set.

I know that sounds like "Chinese".

If you have "Set A" and add +B then "Set A != Set (A + B)". It's more like a multiplicative factor. Set A = (Set A) x B. Something like that.

The events vary depending on the nature of the game, components and mechanics.

So while you have defined a SET of "triggers" they vary according to what you have going in your game.

***

Also I don't know what is going on with the "event" as you have defined it. You say "Trigger (?) => Action(s)" sort of like you have a trigger "A" and it has a set of Actions. That looks to be reasonable.

Not sure about "Condition(s)" which you state as OPTIONAL. Yeah I agree it IS optional ... But what can "Condition(s)" be comprised of. You failed to EXPLAIN that ... And I'm not too certain I understand WHAT(?) qualifies as A CONDITION.

Could you explain that a bit BETTER?!

So your "Trigger" MAY HAVE a "Condition". But what SET is the condition FROM.

Do you understand what I mean???

I'd like to know the SOURCE for the "Condition" and what to examine in the design in order to formally determine the various "Condition(s)" that might be plausible. Obviously I am looking for SOMETHING EXHAUSTIVE. Like a SET or where(?) you can figure out the available "Conditions" and then determine which ones are out of scope depending on the "Trigger" or the "Action(s)".

***

But yeah you are definitely on to something. I'm not too sure I understand the 2nd example... But I guess getting a better grasp of the 1st example is more what I care for. Since I get the feeling that there were some assumptions made and that it's not "EXHAUSTIVE" enough for an AUDIT.

Cheers!

Thu, 01/22/2026 - 10:20

#25

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

Here is 2 random

Here is 2 random examples

TRIGGER: When this card is played
CONDITION: If you have less than 3 monsters in play
ACTION: Destroy a monster
ACTION: Draw a card

TRIGGER: When this creature attacks
CONDITION: If you have no cards in hand
ACTION: Draw a card

Conditions makes the action happen only if a a condition is met in addition to paying the cost of the card. Mostly effective when the card is already in play and you want to give stronger powers. The drawback is evaluating how easy or hard a condition can be met. Having a lot of statistics could help.

Thu, 01/22/2026 - 11:32

#26

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I understood what you meant by "Condition(s)"

questccg wrote:

But from where do you get the POOL of Condition(s) FROM???

I know what a condition is. I just don't know WHERE(?) you get them from. Are they specific to each game or can they be somehow "generalized"?? I ask only because if they are "generic" that would be great. If they are "specific" well that makes matters more complicated...

When using the "Design Space" the idea is to do a FULL AUDIT of what you have as components, mechanics and whatever game element exists to be able to determine ALL the "relationships" amongst those elements.

Now if "Condition(s)" are specific to each ability well that doesn't really HELP it just makes the determination more complex and kinda throws in a wrench around the AUDIT of the elements.

See what I mean? By trying to figure out some kind of SYNTAX you are basically breaking the formulation used by the "Design Space" methodology. Something GENERIC went to SPECIFIC and no longer applies to ALL elements in a design.

I hope you understand my concerns. That's why I asked WHERE(?) do the condition(s) come from... Is it a fixed set or pool or does it vary per element and in this case is invalid from the AUDITING that needs to be done on the "Design Space"...

Cheers.

Thu, 01/29/2026 - 11:38

#27

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

The trigger, condition and

The trigger, condition and effects is specific to each game. Therefore, it is the designer's job to define the possible options. All 3 of them has their own possibility space.

Sat, 01/31/2026 - 21:16

#28

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Triggers, Conditions and Effects.

larienna wrote:

The trigger, condition and effects is specific to each game. Therefore, it is the designer's job to define the possible options...

Well then I would say that the methodology by which you DEFINE these elements is somewhat IMPORTANT. The "Design Space" makes it EASY because you use and define EVERYTHING within the mechanics and elements of the game.

What I mean is that there are no EXCEPTIONS. Your "triggers, conditions and effects" all sound like they are "exceptions" to the standard methodology. So where you add a trigger, it make that mechanic or element "more specific" to YOUR design and not the GENERAL OUTPUT given a standard "Design Space".

The GOAL of the "Design Space" Methodology or Principle is to SIMPLIFY the process to IDENTIFY all the "mechanics" and "elements" and then do an exhaustive AUDIT to determine what is the possible "Design Space".

Do you see what I am trying to explain???

Basically the "Design Space" is GENERIC. Sure it varies per GAME and what "elements" you have... But nevertheless it is EASY because it makes NO ASSUMPTION. All it states is to "AUDIT" EVERYTHING. And when you look at ANY game, it will be rather EASY to determine the "elements" even if they are different.

So the Methodology or Principle is STANDARD. You do and APPLY it as a practice of generally covering EVERYTHING in your game. That's the "Design Space" and the way you OBTAIN it is the SAME for ALL GAMES.

Although the RESULTS of the AUDIT are DIFFERENT, the process of which you use to AUDIT the "mechanics" and "elements" in your game is the SAME.

See what I mean???

I think Triggers, Conditions and Effects will ultimately complexify the process by which we DETERMINE the "Design Space".

***

But I LIKE your ideas! I think once you do the AUDIT, then you can MAYBE work with your output possibilities to ADD some Triggers to YOUR specific design and maybe even Conditions too... Because these two seem to be specific to each game, I don't see a way to "research" the output of an AUDIT and create more CASES which would ADD to the "Design Space".

Again I'm a bit rambling because I am trying to UNDERSTAND this better.

Basically ... It means APPLYING SPECIFIC TRIGGERS and CONDITIONS to a "Design Space" in hopes that you ENLARGEN the possible output of the AUDIT (and obviously AFTER a FULL AUDIT).

So IF I have EVERYTHING from an AUDIT in my "Design Space"... The question is could you INCREASE the SIZE of the "Design Space" by adding Triggers and Conditions...? Or is this a way to restrict the output of an AUDIT into a SMALLER "Design Space" given restrictions that those extras perform a function to NARROW DOWN the SIZE of output...???

IDK.

You'd have to add your train of thought HERE!

Cheers.

Mon, 02/02/2026 - 10:08

#29

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

Quote:I think Triggers,

Quote:

I think Triggers, Conditions and Effects will ultimately complexify the process by which we DETERMINE the "Design Space".

In fact triggers, conditions and effects are a decomposition of the design space into smaller parts. Each of them has its own design space that you can eventually mix and match together to create different outcome.

So both methods are not mutually exclusive. You can explore methodically triggers alone, conditions alone, and effects alone, then combine them to get different results. That should make the exploration of the design space easier and more exhaustive.

User login

Navigation

Feb 13 2026

Feb 12 2026

Feb 10 2026

Feb 3 2026

Feb 2 2026

Jan 30 2026

Jan 25 2026

Jan 16 2026

Jan 12 2026

Jan 11 2026

Jan 10 2026

Jan 1 2026

Dec 29 2025

Dec 25 2025

Dec 22 2025

Dec 15 2025

Dec 9 2025

Dec 6 2025

Dec 5 2025

Dec 3 2025

Nov 13 2025

Nov 12 2025

Nov 1 2025