Was having a spirited discussion with another designer and the topic of form vs function reared its ugly head.
I contend that if you use common mechanics but have great themes and art work a game can be a success.
My friend argues that mechanics outway comical themes and artwork.
So i ask" tell me stories of a new mechanic that could change games as we know them" and alas dead silence.
So my new question is this.
Are there any" NEW" mechanics?
Monkey man
Of course there are new mechanics, they just haven't been invented yet which is why your friend couldn't come up with any!
And I think you're both right. You can make a great game with a combination of existing mechanics, and a good theme and great artwork. You can also make a great game with new, inventive mechanics and no theme and no artwork (aka "abstract").
I'm such a relativist. I was going to write about how mechanics are not more important than art and theme, but it really depends on what you think is important.
Art and theme sell your game. Really, it's art and production quality that sell the game. You can have a game with "meh" mechanics and awesome art and it'll sell well. You can have a game with lousy mechanics and awesome art and it'll sell well initially, but no one will replay it and sales will drop off. If you have a game with awesome mechanics and "meh" or lousy art, it'll be really, really hard to sell it and just as hard to maintain sales.
If your priority is commercial success, art and theme are more important than mechanical innovation.
If your priority is ease and fun of play, mechanics may be more important. Note that I say "may be" because there are plenty of fun games that use "old" mechanics and are still very enjoyable.
If your priority is sustained commercial success and sales; art, theme, and mechanics are all important.
The other question: Are there any new mechanics?
My answer: Absolutely.
The obvious follow up: What are they?
My answer: What's the equation for fun? What will the stock market be doing three decades from now? What's in my pocket? New mechanics are, by definition, not common knowledge. If they're going to, "change games as we know them," they're probably also valuable and patentable. They're going to be very, very hard to come by. After all, there are a lot of mechanics out there. It's a difficult field to innovate in.
Did Garfield's Magic: The Gathering use a new mechanic? Was the Deckmaster structure a new mechanic? I think it was, but if you'd assert it was not, we're going to have a really hard time coming to any kind of agreement on the possibility for new mechanics to exist.
Let's talk about some areas that provide opportunities for new board game mechanics:
* Fog of war in multiplayer strategy games.
* Clue seeking and revelation in whodunnit mysteries.
* Game-controlled artificially intelligent agents.
* Sensible randomly-generated terrain.
I've seen each of these topics discussed and brainstormed on the BGDF. Each time, there are ideas that rely on "old" mechanics, but I've seen sparks of new mechanical concepts flare up too. The most likely places to find new mechanics in board games are the spaces that cause the most design problems; the spaces where we don't have good answers.
Consider Pandemic by Matt Leacock: The Infection deck is a masterful use of a deck of cards to simulate global infection outbreak and spread. I'm not saying that a deck of cards is a new mechanic. I am asserting that the way he used and manipulated the unique properties of a deck of cards is a new mechanic. It's a mechanic for a very specific purpose, but it's a new mechanic nonetheless and it does what it's designed to do very well.
New mechanics are out there, and they'll continue to appear.
There are new mechanics. There are not many new mechanics that comes up every year but there are new mechanics. Sometimes a new mechanic can be born with new components.
For example, in samurai, you have the tower you throw cube in it to resolve the battle. This is a new component that allows new mechanics.
In dominion, the "deck creation while you play the game" mechanic was totally new and it even open the door to another game and probably many others.
Space Alert sports a bunch of unique new mechanics. In this game you are the crew of a space ship that is under attack. A soundtrack will have programmed threats come at you in different configurations. You and the other players have to program moves about the space ship, so that your combination of weapons, shields, and power supplies are all activated at the right times to thwart the threats. You might argue that if taken in isolation, every mechanic may have been seen before in other games, but I think the game as a whole puts forth a new version of gaming than has been seen before.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute (bearing in mind that I'm being provocative for fun and to encourage friendly debate, NOT to be a jerk):
There are no new mechanics.
There are new combinations of mechanics (as in Space Alert), or applications of old mechanics into styles of games in which they're not usually found (knocking down towers in Samurai), but there are no new mechanics.
I'm coming at this from the Bruce Lee angle in which he asserted (paraphrasing) that, "as long as people have 2 arms and 2 legs, they will fight the same way." He was talking about martial styles, but I think the same thing applies to games. As long as people think like people and manipulate things like people, there will be a finite number of ways they play games, and the accumulated history of boardgaming has mapped most, if not all, of the useful ones.
There are some game changers, like new tools and technologies, but, really, how many new mechanics do computer games employ not found in tabletop games (one answer: decoding UPC labels for "Monster Rancher" style games)?
Another, very interesting game changer: genetic engineering. What kinds of games will people play when we can see in the infrared spectrum or hear in the ultrasonic range? Although, now that I think about it, I wonder if even that will matter.
Yeah, this is probably all smoke-blowing, but as I write it, I have a very hard time identifying actual new mechanics. Anyone? Good examples?
M:tG's innovation was the creation of a library of cards and rules that all players had access to, but were free to build their own game decks from (within the constraints of the rules). To my knowledge, that specific mechanic had never-ever been used before.
Pandemic's innovation is more subtle because it relies on a special understanding of the role the infection deck plays as metaphysical representation in the game-world. It's not the use of a deck of cards as a randomizer, or any specific rule in the use of the infection deck. It's a holistic innovation; it's the entirety of the infection deck's role and use in the game. The infection deck metaphysically tracks the cities that are most and least likely to breed disease.
The infection deck initially provides the nine infected cities. Those nine cities then get shuffled and replaced on top of the deck. This ensures that the cities that start infected will continue to breed disease. This mechanic of repopulating the top of the infection deck with the discarded infection cards is reused over and over during the game for the same metaphysical purpose.
I could go on, but I have to leave soon. Going to go see The Wolfman with friends. It's not really my kind of flick, but my friend is such a werewolf fan that it'll be a hoot to watch it with him.
Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Pandemic, and I don't fully understand the infection deck as described (I wish you'd had more time to explain it, but I understand the need to go see movies with good friends, too. :) ).
As for M:TG, it's unquestionably a "first of its kind" card game, but the deck building mechanic itself strikes me as a transposition of an established mechanic to a different genre. An example that leaps to mind is the "Clam Chowder" variation of golf, wherein golfers are allowed only 3 clubs out of their bag to play out the entire course. This is "deck building," albiet with a much smaller deck. :) Nevertheless, the essential mechanic remains intact: given a particular playing field and set of opponents, optimize your game by selecting a subset of all available tools for use during competition.
Now, I have to go read up on the infection deck...
the golf club example is over-simplified. 3 clubs selected from a very very finite choice of clubs, over a static and shared playing area, is a far cry from a deck built of less than 1% of total available choices, to combat an equally infinite choice of possibilities (and you're not guaranteed to play the same opponents as your fellow competitors), with different rarity levels (among other factors) shaping the possible choices to the degree that an entire community (metagame and trading) is required to support the concept.
specifically, it's possible to have a golf tournament where all possible combinations of tournament-legal club types are represented by players- and moreover, there will probably be lots of overlap. representation of all possible combinations is not possible in any tournament format in magic.
i'm all for devil's advocate, but your descriptors in this case are too broad- you're defining "game" (in the broad sense- i could use the same sentence to describe any game, as well as a variety of things which are not games) rather than a particular mechanic. mechanics, by their nature, must be more narrowly attributed.
That's possible. I think that depends on what you consider the essential nature of the deck-building mechanic. For me, it's not the size of the deck that matters, or the size of the potential pool from which you draw the deck -- or even the rarity of the available cards.
Consider Dominion, for example. It's not a CCG, but most people (and the description on BGG) describe it as a deck-building game. The mechanic is applied in a different way than Magic, and Dominion has a finite number of cards and a much more limited set of possible interactions, and yet, people still describe the central mechanic as "deck building."
I think the things you're calling out that make Magic different than clam chowder have less to do with deck building than the "collectible" nature of the game. "Collectibility" is certainly another mechanic to consider, but it's not new, either. Ever since marbles (and probably before that), people have risked collections of rare game pieces in direct competition. Of course, in marbles, the individual pieces lack the tactical distinction of the cards in M:TG, but that is yet a different mechanic -- the nature of the rules governing the interactions between playing pieces.
And, as I write this, I realize that most war games also use a "deck building" type mechanic when they allow players to assemble forces within a fixed total unit cost and pit them against each other in battle. If one considers games like Advanced Squad Leader, one finds a depth of choices probably on par with M:TG, with at least as many tactical options and detailed rules.
This is *not* to downplay the originality of Magic, which is an outstanding game and the first of its kind (as far as I know). See below for more on this.
I'm not sure which sentence you mean, but if I understand your critique, you mean that one can't abstract a game's mechanics away from the context of the game. For example, Magic is unique because it combines deck-building with collectibility and nearly-infinite interactions to create a unique experience. I totally agree with that, and think M:TG is a breakthrough game, completely deserving of praise and respect.
However, I don't think collectibility, or near-infinite interactions, nor deck-building (or, more generally, selecting units prior to entering battle) are unique to Magic, or even first appeared in Magic. Magic was "just" the first game to put them together in that particular way.
So, there are no new mechanics, but there ARE new games, and that's why we're all here: to take the existing patterns and strategies we call "mechanics" and assemble them in new was to create fun, unique, and never-before-seen games.
On re-re-reading this post, I see I missed something: "the rules that all players had access to..."
This is separate from deck-building, and something I didn't address in the above post.
At first, I interpreted this as a "meta-rules" mechanic, where the rules of the game change based on the cards played. The more I thought about it, though, the less I believed the interpretation. Based on the few games of M:TG I've tried, the cards don't usually change the overarching rules of the game (e.g., victory conditions), but mostly modify the interactions between units in play or in the decks. Since the overall game rules don't exlicitly define these interactions, the decks don't represent meta rules as much as they do units bundled with their unique rules.
Setting aside deck-building as a separate mechanic, we're then left with "each card is a special piece." I'm not sure that's new to Magic, though Magic certainly took it to a level never before seen. Looking beyond that change in scope, I can see similarities to chess and Stratego and even D&D (where my class determines the subset of rules I can use and I can face any number of unique monsters, many of which require me and my party to adopt different strategies to effectively combat).
Again, this isn't to downplay Garfield's genius or even to say that he consciously borrowed mechanics from other games to "cobble together" M:TG. Quite the opposite -- I think he carefully crafted the game to maximize both fun and profitability. I'm just trying to identify the components of the game and compare them to patterns in other, earlier, games to see if M:TG contains anything truly unique beyond the combination of mechanics it employs.
And I certainly could be wrong about all of this. :)
there we go- i agree that the collectibility combined with the deck-building is the innovation, but my statement is that the combination is the mechanic... they were designed with each other in mind, and to work together- the way the collectibility works (rarity, packaging, etc.) is based on the designers' assumptions about deck-building, and in some cases, vice versa. And they are only a small part of the game, there are tons of other mechanics (for example, the combat rules, spell casting rules, etc.) that make Magic the game it is.
for example, a tuning fork and an electromagnet were the original basis of telephones, but we do not say that the telephone was not an invention. combining things in new and dynamic ways defines innovation... you're picking out the small bits when they're intended to work together. obviously collectibility is not new (baseball cards, etc.), nor is deckbuilding really (as you mentioned, wargames essentially do that), but the combination IS the mechanic. they are mechanics separately as well (just like a tuning fork and an electromagnet are mechanics separately), but when combined they are a NEW mechanic, their interaction is dynamic- greater than the sum of its parts.
rolling a dice and counting the pips was old (gambling games in rome, sheep bones before that), and moving a playing piece from one area to another (mancala) is potentially even more ancient. now we've got an entire genre of games using the "roll and move" mechanic. most of them are very poorly designed, and we certainly take it for granted NOW, but at some point in history "roll and move" was an innovative mechanic.
to say there are ONLY new -games- is the same as saying the word "mechanic" is not valid to begin with, to say that it should never be used... that any innovative combination, whether it is a smaller part of the whole (like deckbuilding+collectibility is a smaller part of the whole that is magic) or whether the combination comprising all relevant descriptors, is a game. the "whole" is the game, certainly. but i think it best serves the design community to use different vocabulary to identify the pieces that make up the whole. it's certainly also useful to break things down to their simplest quantity (in this game you roll the dice. in this same game, you move your playing piece a number of spaces), but it is equally important to identify the dynamic combination (in this game, you roll the dice and then move your playing piece a number of spaces indicated by the dice).
I think the term "mechanic" is valid and useful for that purpose, you just have to know how and why you're using it- and realize that combining mechanics forms NEW mechanics- just as the inventions of the tuning fork and electromagnet came together and made the new invention of the telephone; just as counting items and rolling any object combines to make a dice; and a dice combined with spatial movement makes roll and move.
I think the term "mechanic" is valid and useful for that purpose, you just have to know how and why you're using it- and realize that combining mechanics forms NEW mechanics-
You raise a lot of excellent points, as well as an interesting tangent: "what constitutes a mechanic?" Rather than get into that discussion -- which strikes me as potentially endless -- I suggest we sidestep in order to address Monkey Kid's intended question, which is (I think), "Do there exist any undiscovered atomic design patterns in the world of board games?"
Here, "atomic design patterns" refers to single aspect of a compound game design. For lack of a better definition, think of "atomic design patterns" as answeringf fundamental questions like, "How do I move my pieces," "how do I collect resources," or "how do I obtain units?" Vague, yes, but it's a starting place.
The only reason I suggest narrowing the scope this way is to keep the discussion alive. If we consider combinations of "mechanics" (or atomic design patterns), we render Monkey Kid's original question moot: of course there are new combinations -- that's what all of us do for a hobby.
So, given that, are there any "new" atomic design patterns out there?
One recent example that comes to mind is the "meta rules" nature of Fluxx. Before that, I hadn't seen a game that was self-modifying, but surely there must have been one. Can anyone think of an example?
fluxx plays up it's "changing the rules" part, but lots of games did essentially the same thing- including magic (though i'm sure there are plenty of games before magic that did so too). fluxx just termed it rule-breaking/making within the structure of their game, so it's more apparent- and gave a smaller initial rules set so there was more to add-on. (magic started in '93, fluxx in '96)
parallel examples: fluxx basic rule- draw 1, play 1. i play this card says everyone draws 2 now (which is the same as Howling Mine in magic, among others). i play this card that says if I have x, y, and z in play, i win (which is what Coalition Victory does, among others, in magic).
fluxx's approach to rule breaking/making is almost more about that being the "theme" of the game, rather than any mechanical ingenuity. they did a good job with that theme, and the mechanics of the rules overwriting each other, etc. supports it well (and keep in mind i hate playing the game, it's an exercise in chaos, but i do agree that their implementation was sound).
but those mechanics in general were not particularly innovative, and no combination of the cards that i've encountered thusfar (i've played fluxx, zombie fluxx, and monty python fluxx) have been anything interesting. they just used the ("it's a RULE") terminology that suited their theme well, so people get all "omg no-one EVER thought of changing the RULES of a game in the MIDDLE of it before", when in fact, lots of games do. it's an entire design perspective, in fact- you create the rules of the game, and then you implement variance by generating ways to break them. in Magic, Fluxx, El Grande, etc. etc, those rule-breaks for variance happen to be on the cards rather than in the manual. if there was no text on the cards, but instead the description of what each card did was in the rulebook, it would be more apparent.
what i'm saying is- fluxx is a better example of thematic application than mechanical innovation.
(i promise i'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake of it, even though it may appear that way).
fluxx's approach to rule breaking/making is almost more about that being the "theme" of the game, rather than any mechanical ingenuity. they did a good job with that theme, and the mechanics of the rules overwriting each other, etc. supports it well (and keep in mind i hate playing the game, it's an exercise in chaos, but i do agree that their implementation was sound).
but those mechanics in general were not particularly innovative, and no combination of the cards that i've encountered thusfar (i've played fluxx, zombie fluxx, and monty python fluxx) have been anything interesting.
what i'm saying is- fluxx is a better example of thematic application than mechanical innovation.
(i promise i'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake of it, even though it may appear that way).
I suspected that Magic had meta rules cards, but I haven't played enough to know. The other thing I didn't know was if Magic cards could undo every rule, or consistently effect rules for all players at once. Even if they did, though, I think you would be right about that being more of a thematic variation than a mechanics difference.
On all other points, I agree. I always want to like Fluxx, but the very nature of its design makes tactical planning impossible, so you might as well just flip a coin to see who wins.
And I don't mind contrariness -- I started it. Besides, different viewpoints are the reason we're here. It's not very interesting when everyone is in agreement. :)
When you define Mechanics as Atomic Design Patterns I don't think there is or ever can be anything New.
Every innovation in any industry comes from existing components which are merely arranged, or presented in a new way. Salt and Water combine to make Saltwater. New, yes, but made up from already existing components. Similarly with board game design mechanics. The components (design or physical) we use already exist in some form even if we patent a new device that new device is still made up of existing components.
I think the reason this discussion became about the definition of 'Mechanic' is because onece you answer that you answer your question.
Are there or will there ever be any New mechanics?
If 'Mechanic' is a completely new Atomic Design Pattern then NO, there will NEVER be anything New and cannot be since Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
If 'Mechanic' is how the Atomic Design Patterns are used together to form new results then YES, that's what we do!
And I think we all agree on both those statements but if I am wrong feel free to point it out to me. Thanks.
You are definitely looking at this at a lower level than I did! :) It sounds like you're talking about the existence of physical systems, whereas I'm talking about "discovered" systems. By that I mean -- to use your example -- salt and water existed before the human race, but until someone thought to consciously mix the two to create saltwater, that "formula" remained undiscovered.
So...to re-rephrase Monkey Kid's original question: "Do there exist any undiscovered atomic design patterns?"
Your interpretation does raise an interesting point, though -- new physical systems don't necessarily create the opportunity for new mechanics. For example, suppose we were to isolate dark matter such that we could manipulate it. Imagine any physical property you want for it, now try to invent a new mechanic based on that property. I'm willing to bet we can't do it, because we will have simulated those properties in some other way.
This indicates (to me), that the limiting factor of useful game mechanics is human psychology, not physical properties of existing matter. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, though, so I put forth the "Dark Matter Challenge" as stated above:
Invent any physical properties you want for Dark Matter, then build an original game mechanic out of it.
Can you do it, Dodgers?
Ultimately I think most mechanics are based on something else; whether that is another mechanic, or some phenomenon in nature, or a mathematical equation, nothing is isolated on its own. So I don't think there are new mechanics, and I don't really think there ever were, at least if we are talking about atomic ones.
It's almost like asking if there are any new colors. "Hey, did you see that painting? You know, the one that has a new color in it! Wow! It's the color gazongo, and it blew my mind."
However, new art styles emerge all the time. For instance, pixel art. Where did that come from lol. (Well I know where, but you get the idea). pixel art is fundamentally different from, say, impressionism, even though they both use the same colors. I think this is where mechanics fit. We can continue to mix things up in completely new ways - enough that it really does feel unique and unlike anything that came before. I just think that even in those cases, if you squint hard enough, you'll be able to see that it is made up of the same stuff.
I'm not sure mechanic is a very good name for it, but i think it's the best we have. The best example of how varied even a single mechanic can be I think is combat. There are about as many dice-based combat systems as there are games. Even though these are all the same mechanic, they way it works in each game feels and plays very different. Heck, look at the pool of pure dice rolling games. There's a lot of variation there as well, and not just in a "this dice game is better balanced" sort of way
I think we should be hopeful that it is possible to be very innovative, and stand out from the crowd, without inventing a new mechanic.
When people say that Magic: the Gathering uses essentially the same mechanic as Clam Chowder Golf, I think that the idea of "the same" becomes so broad that it is meaningless.
In Magic you strive to build synergy by combining cards into a deck. Cards have to work together for combinations to become bigger than their composing elements. In Clam Chowder Golf, the way it is described - I never heard about the game before - you don't try to do anything like that.
If Dominion uses the same mechanic as Magic: the Gathering, and Magic: the Gathering uses the same mechanic as Clam Chowder Golf, then I'd like to point out that Clam Chowder Golf is not using a mechanic that is different from standard golf. There is already a limit on how many clubs you can carry, or how many clubs fit into your golf bag. Making the limit smaller in itself is not a new mechanic. And golf itself is not original either; it is about whacking a ball with a stick and getting it into a hole. Several sports and games are based on these mechanics.
But if all those mechanics are the same, then playing Dominion is really about whacking a ball with a stick to get it into a hole. And tbh, I don't see how it is like that. The idea of "the same" is being used in such a vague way that it leads to strange results.
I have to disagree when you say that there are no new mechanics.
There are WW2, Sci-fi and Modern Political games I have not made public that use mechanics never before used in other games. So yes I do believe new stuff comes out all the time. It is the games that overlap that just seem to share both success and popularity on the same path.
To say that you take A, B, and C from other sources and come up with a new way of applying them -- then yes that is a new mechanic built on inheritance of others (to borrow a computer term). Some very base mechanics or mechanism are neither original or singular to one game design. Like the commands in a computer language, it is how you group and organize them that make the overall application of the those core mechanics unique. This is how software and games patents should also work, thus preventing the patenting of underlying base root things like Dice, flashing dots on screens, button, flipping cards, etc.
Some things like turning over a card could be construed as using the same mechanic, but does not represent the overall whole. My latest cardgame could be compared to Dominion, but it is not the same at all. The only similarity is that you have actions and buys and vps, and there is deckbuilding. That's it. It seems the same on the surface but all else is dramatically different, including the genre in which it is set.
I think most people are smart enough to know what they like, and also know the difference between a blatant rip off and a better variation on a old theme. That is what makes the overall evolution of the new "Games Rush" interesting.
Of course this is correct. Many commercially successful games aren't terribly innovative, mechanically. Ticket to Ride, for example, is just train rummy.
The claim that Clam Chowder Golf uses a deck building mechanic is simply silly. If you played golf and only owned three clubs, then you'd be in the same situation as playing Clam Chowder Golf. Magic revolves around a set of components which are created just for the purpose of the combination game of deck building.
And the combination you're looking for is entirely different. In the golf thing, you want three clubs which are most different so as to be able to make the greatest range of shots. In Magic, you want cards that fit together and work in combinations.
So we can say that Magic used a new mechanic. More importantly (with respect to the original post) the original mechanic comes hand-in-hand with a new business model. The theme really didn't matter much.
As another example of a new mechanic: In Bohnanza, you are not allowed to change the order of the cards in your hand. This is really clever, and it makes the game. Alas, it doesn't involve a new business model - and so there haven't been dozens of Bohnanza knock-offs.
What constitutes a "new" mechanic?
Is it the reuse of old components in a novel way? The invention of novel components used in a common fashion? Or using novel components in a new way?
Game A uses thrown meeple to form an ever changing playing surface.
Game B uses a selection of colourless, odourless chemicals that when randomly combined give one of 6 colours, each colour corresponding to a number of spaces of movement on the board.
Game C uses Genetically Engineered fast growing seeds which players plant to try and produce enough tomatoes to start a fire.
Which game could be considered to have a "new" mechanic?
Or is simply taking existing mechanics and combining them in a new way enough to be considered a "new" mechanic?
After giving this a bit of thought, I might agree that there are no new mechanics. Of course, this is something that changes as culture and technology change. Perhaps one day a mechanic might involve inflicting pain or, in the above example, genetically modified super fast-growing plants, or chemicals. The chemical thing as presented, isn't really even a *new* mechanic, but a different way to accomplish what I die or a spinner could do. So new, no. But new way of doing it, yes.
I think a good analogy for this discussion is music. In music, there are a finite number of notes, and thus a finite number of combinations of chords and chord progressions. Thus there are a finite number of songs.
That being said, there is always new music. Why? Because people take from a set of the finite and make it different by adding their personal style to a song, their vocal abilities, the pacing and tempo of the song. They're using old mechanics which have never changed (Set of 7 notes with their respective minors and flats) and their combinations but adding a little something extra to make it seem new.
That being said, I believe there is merit in the creativity of combining mechanics in an elegant way, and that these can be considered "new" in the same way songs are considered "new".
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (16) by questccg |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
 | TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
| Toy play: Creating a log while playing (15) by questccg |
