Systemic games are often described as though the solution is simply to connect everything to everything else. Fire affects grass. Water conducts electricity. Sound attracts enemies. Objects have weight. Characters remember what happened. Weather changes visibility. Food spoils. Doors react to pressure. Somebody suggests adding wind, and suddenly the engineering team is explaining why every loose object in the game now needs an opinion about aerodynamics. These relationships can create remarkable depth. When rules remain consistent across different situations, players begin treating the world as something they can understand. They form expectations, test ideas and carry knowledge into new encounters. A mechanic stops being a button they press and becomes part of a larger model of how the world behaves.
That coherence is powerful, but it isn’t free. Every supported rule creates technical, creative and testing responsibilities. If fire spreads, the team needs to decide what burns, how quickly it spreads, how enemies respond, what feedback communicates the danger and whether a mission-critical object can disappear during a particularly enthusiastic experiment. If sound matters, the team needs to determine which actions create it, who hears it, how far it travels and what happens when several sources compete for attention. The solution isn’t to simulate everything. It is to identify the rules most important to the player fantasy, support their meaningful consequences and make those rules trustworthy. Strong systemic design isn’t unlimited complexity. It is disciplined scope.
EVERY RULE CREATES A CHAIN OF RESPONSIBILITY
A rule rarely stays inside the system where it was first created. The moment players can apply it in several contexts, it begins affecting other disciplines and features. Consider a simple rule: loud sounds attract nearby enemies. On paper, it appears to be an AI behaviour. In production, it quickly becomes an audio-design problem, an animation problem, a level-design problem, an interface problem and a mission-design problem.
The player needs to understand which actions create sound. Enemies need a believable response. Environments need enough space for investigation behaviour. Missions need to survive when guards leave their intended positions. The game needs feedback showing whether the sound was heard, otherwise experimentation feels like shouting into a void and hoping somebody in quality assurance eventually explains what happened.
| Supported Rule | Consequences The Team Must Consider | Disciplines Affected |
|---|---|---|
| Sound attracts attention | Volume, distance, obstruction, investigation and competing noises | AI, audio, level design, animation and interface |
| Fire spreads | Materials, speed, damage, performance and mission-critical objects | Engineering, art, VFX, AI and mission design |
| Objects have weight | Movement, stacking, collision, breakage and puzzle exploits | Physics, animation, level design and testing |
| Characters remember behaviour | Witnesses, duration, reputation, dialogue and forgiveness | Narrative, AI, progression and interface |
| Weather affects play | Visibility, movement, equipment, AI and environmental hazards | Rendering, systems, audio and level design |
| Electricity travels through water | Conductive materials, damage, feedback and unintended chains | Engineering, VFX, combat and environment design |
This multiplication is one reason systemic features become expensive. The cost isn’t only building the rule. The cost comes from respecting the rule everywhere the player reasonably expects it to apply. A rule that works only during its demonstration isn’t a world rule. It is a prepared trick.
Insider Tip: Before approving a systemic feature, list every discipline and existing system it can affect. If the feature appears cheap only because most of its consequences haven’t been discussed, the estimate isn’t finished.
COHERENCE DOESN’T MEAN SIMULATING EVERYTHING
It is easy to confuse coherence with completeness. If a believable world is good, a world simulating every possible behaviour must be better. That logic leads directly towards a production where every chair is interactive, every meal has nutritional values and the cheese sandwich eventually becomes the most technically advanced object in the game. A coherent game doesn’t need to model everything. It needs the rules central to its fantasy to remain dependable.
A detective game doesn’t require an advanced destruction system if deduction is the core experience. It does need evidence, testimony, contradiction and observation to behave consistently. A platformer doesn’t need complicated faction politics, but movement, momentum, collision and recovery need to be precise. A survival game may not need elaborate social simulation, but resources, preparation, environmental pressure and consequence need to hold together.
| Player Fantasy | Rules That Need Strong Coherence | Systems That May Remain Abstracted |
|---|---|---|
| Detective | Evidence, testimony, contradiction and deduction | Detailed combat physics |
| Survivor | Scarcity, preparation, injury and environmental pressure | Complex social reputation |
| Thief | Visibility, sound, security and possession | Large-scale destruction |
| Leader | Relationships, information, authority and consequence | Precision traversal |
| Platforming hero | Movement, momentum, collision and recovery | Persistent economic simulation |
| Tactical commander | Positioning, information, resources and unit behaviour | Detailed object interaction |
The question isn’t how much the game can simulate. It is which rules the player must trust for the intended identity and behaviour to work. This is where simulation meaning becomes useful. The ruleset should express what the game is about. If the fantasy depends on careful preparation, preparation needs mechanical weight. If the player is meant to feel observant, noticing information must change what they can do. If the player is meant to feel vulnerable, the game can’t constantly protect them from every consequence capable of producing vulnerability.
Insider Tip: Write down the three behaviours that define the fantasy. Spend systemic complexity on the rules that make those behaviours meaningful before simulating anything simply because it would be impressive.
RELIABLE RULES CREATE PLAYER TRUST
Players don’t need every rule to be realistic. They need rules to be understandable and dependable. A game can establish that bushes completely hide the player even when several leaves clearly aren’t enough to conceal an adult carrying six weapons. The abstraction can still work because its meaning is readable. Enter the bush, break visibility. The player understands the rule and can plan around it.
Trust collapses when the same-looking situation produces a different result without explanation. One wooden door can be destroyed while an identical door is completely immune. Sound attracts enemies until a mission needs them to remain beside a dramatic object. Fire spreads through one room but politely stops at another because the cinematic department has booked the next space. Exceptions are sometimes necessary. The problem is hiding them inside apparently consistent situations.
| Rule Behaviour | What The Player Learns |
|---|---|
| Similar conditions produce similar outcomes | Knowledge can be transferred |
| Exceptions are communicated clearly | The world has readable boundaries |
| Results include understandable feedback | Cause and effect can be traced |
| Rules remain active during important encounters | The simulation can be trusted under pressure |
| Mechanics disappear near authored content | Creativity is conditionally permitted |
| Identical objects behave differently | Visual information can’t be trusted |
Once players stop trusting the rules, they change their behaviour. They experiment less because ideas become unreliable. They wait for prompts because prompts are safer than interpretation. They test the game’s limitations instead of thinking inside its world. The system may still function correctly according to its implementation. The player experiences inconsistency because the visible promise and behavioural result no longer agree.
Insider Tip: Audit repeated visual language. If two objects look functionally identical but follow different rules, communicate the difference or align their behaviour. Players learn from categories, not internal asset names.
PROPAGATION IS WHERE THE COST MULTIPLIES
The deepest cost of systemic design appears when state changes move beyond the immediate interaction. A burning object is relatively simple if it only displays an effect and loses health. It becomes a systemic rule when the fire spreads, creates smoke, changes visibility, attracts characters, damages structures and alters the available routes through an encounter. That propagation creates depth because one decision can reshape several connected conditions. It also increases production responsibility because every connection needs boundaries, feedback and recovery.
| Propagation Level | Example | Production Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Local response | Fire damages one object | Contained and predictable |
| Nearby reaction | Fire spreads to adjacent materials | Material rules and spatial testing |
| Behavioural response | Enemies avoid or investigate the fire | AI states, navigation and animation |
| Environmental change | Smoke reduces visibility and opens another route | Rendering, level design and encounter balance |
| Persistent state | The area remains damaged after the encounter | Saving, narrative response and future mission support |
| Networked consequence | Factions react to who caused the damage | Reputation, dialogue and systemic memory |
Not every interaction needs to reach the final row. Propagation becomes useful when it supports decisions the fantasy cares about. A stealth game may need sound to influence guards, security systems and civilian behaviour, but it may not need every sound to permanently affect faction reputation. A survival game may require weather to alter temperature, visibility and resource use without also influencing the regional economy. The team needs to decide how far each rule travels. Without boundaries, system connections produce an expanding web of consequences that becomes difficult to understand, balance and test. With boundaries that are too narrow, the systems exist beside one another without creating meaningful depth.
Insider Tip: Give every systemic rule a propagation boundary. Define what it affects directly, what it can influence indirectly and where the chain deliberately stops.
COHERENCE REQUIRES SAYING NO
Games often grow through accumulation. Another ability appears. Another progression layer is added. Somebody proposes crafting because the player already collects resources, and apparently collecting three pieces of metal creates a legal obligation to manufacture trousers. Each feature can be appealing in isolation while weakening the larger ruleset.
A convenience mechanic may improve pacing but remove meaningful preparation from a survival game. Automatic clue detection may prevent players from becoming stuck while also performing the detective work for them. A powerful traversal ability may feel wonderful but invalidate the spatial constraints supporting exploration. This doesn’t mean convenience, guidance or power are bad. It means they need to be judged by the behaviour they create and the relationships they alter.
| Proposed Feature | Immediate Benefit | Possible Coherence Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic resource collection | Reduces repetition | Preparation becomes passive |
| Universal objective markers | Prevents confusion | Observation and navigation lose value |
| Powerful fast travel | Improves pacing | Distance, danger and preparation become irrelevant |
| Automatic clue highlighting | Protects progression | Deduction becomes confirmation |
| One weapon effective everywhere | Reduces frustration | Positioning and enemy variety lose meaning |
| Broad inventory expansion | Gives players flexibility | Scarcity stops shaping decisions |
| Protected important characters | Preserves narrative delivery | World rules reveal visible exceptions |
Saying no protects more than the schedule. It protects the relationship between the fantasy and the rules. A crowded ruleset isn’t necessarily deep. It may contain numerous features that disagree, overlap or remove the pressure another system was designed to create. Depth comes from meaningful relationships, not from the number of menu tabs available to the player.
Insider Tip: When reviewing a new feature, ask which existing decision it strengthens, changes or removes. If it doesn’t affect meaningful behaviour, it may be adding content rather than depth.
SYSTEMIC SCOPE MUST MATCH PRODUCTION CAPACITY
Systemic scope should be treated as a production budget. A small team can create significant depth through a limited set of strongly connected rules. It can also destroy itself attempting to support every possible interaction across a large world. The difference comes from choosing a manageable number of relationships and testing them across enough situations for players to trust them.
Teams often estimate features individually. Combat requires one amount of work. Weather requires another. Destruction requires another. The estimate becomes misleading when the features interact, because the combined cost is greater than the sum of their isolated implementation. Weather affecting fire means both systems require additional states. Fire affecting AI creates more behaviour. AI interacting with destructible spaces creates navigation problems. Destruction changing mission routes creates scripting and narrative consequences. The cost lives in the connections. A useful rule budget should therefore include:
| Scope Question | What It Reveals |
|---|---|
| How many systems can activate this rule? | Integration cost |
| How many states can the rule create? | Testing and saving requirements |
| How far can consequences propagate? | Content and mission risk |
| How often will players encounter it? | Whether the investment supports the core experience |
| Can the rule be communicated consistently? | Feedback and tutorial requirements |
| Can unexpected results become playable states? | System resilience |
| Does the team have ownership for every connection? | Maintenance responsibility |
A rule used throughout the entire game can justify considerable investment. A complicated interaction appearing once may be expensive authored content wearing a fake moustache and introducing itself as a system.
Insider Tip: Estimate relationships as well as features. Two systems that never interact have two implementation costs. Two systems that influence one another create integration, balancing, feedback and testing costs between them.
TEST CONTRADICTIONS, NOT ONLY BUGS
Systemic games need more than functional testing. A mechanic can work exactly as programmed while contradicting a rule the player has already learned. A door may correctly reject fire damage because it uses a protected mission-object classification. The player doesn’t see that classification. They see a wooden door behaving differently from every other wooden object. The code is functioning. The simulation is lying. Testing therefore needs to examine player expectations across categories and contexts.
| Contradiction Type | Test Question |
|---|---|
| Rule test | Does the mechanic produce the intended response? |
| Transfer test | Does the same knowledge work in a new location? |
| Combination test | What happens when several mechanics interact? |
| Exception test | Are necessary rule changes clearly communicated? |
| Pressure test | Does the rule survive important missions and cinematics? |
| Recovery test | Can an unexpected outcome become another playable state? |
| Fantasy test | Does the resulting behaviour reinforce the intended identity? |
This requires testers to think like players building a model of the world. If a rule appears consistent, where else would a player reasonably apply it? What happens when they combine it with another system? Which visual, audio or narrative signals create expectations the implementation can’t support? Unexpected behaviour isn’t automatically a bug. A surprising result may be one of the strongest moments in the game if it remains understandable and produces a valid new situation. The important question is whether the outcome follows the established logic.
Insider Tip: When a playtester tries something unexpected, record the assumption behind the attempt. Even when the interaction isn’t supported, that assumption reveals what the game has taught the player to believe.
KNOWLEDGE IS A FORM OF PROGRESSION
Coherent rules allow knowledge to move. A player learns that metal conducts electricity in one encounter and later recognises a wet metal surface as an opportunity. They learn that enemies investigate sound and begin using machinery, thrown objects and environmental hazards as distractions. They understand that heavy objects activate pressure mechanisms and start reading clutter as potential equipment.
The game hasn’t necessarily awarded a new ability. The player has become more capable because their understanding has changed.
| Knowledge Gained | Systemic Meaning |
|---|---|
| Unlocks a new ability | Reveals a new use for an existing rule |
| Increases a numerical value | Improves prediction and planning |
| Expands the available toolset | Expands the player’s understanding |
| Usually arrives through rewards | Often arrives through experimentation |
| Changes what the character can do | Changes what the player can recognise |
| Can be communicated through menus | Becomes visible through behaviour |
This is one of the strongest returns on the cost of coherence. A dependable rule generates value across every situation where the player can apply it. One piece of knowledge creates many possible plans.
Inconsistent rules destroy that progression. If fire only spreads in prepared puzzle areas, the player learns locations rather than behaviour. If sound works differently during story encounters, they learn to separate “real gameplay” from “the bit where the systems take a small holiday.” Coherence lets the world teach through consequence. The player learns once and applies often.
Insider Tip: Track what the player knows, not only what the character has unlocked. A strong progression plan should show how the player’s understanding becomes more sophisticated across the game.
BUILD COHERENCE AROUND NON-NEGOTIABLE RULES
The practical solution isn’t to write a document containing every possible interaction and then quietly leave the country before production begins. It is to define the rules that the fantasy can’t survive without. Start with the intended player identity. Identify the repeated behaviours that should create that identity. Then determine which rules make those behaviours reliable, meaningful and transferable.
| Core Rule | Player-Facing Priority |
|---|---|
| Define the fantasy | Who should the player feel they are? |
| Identify defining behaviour | What should they repeatedly need to think about and do? |
| Choose non-negotiable rules | Which relationships make that behaviour meaningful? |
| Set propagation boundaries | How far should each consequence travel? |
| Remove contradictions | Which features weaken or bypass those relationships? |
| Plan readable feedback | How will players understand cause and effect? |
| Test transfer | Can knowledge work outside its introduction? |
| Protect coherence | Will the rules remain active during important moments? |
| Measure production cost | Can the team support every promised relationship? |
This creates a hierarchy. Central rules receive the greatest consistency, communication and testing investment. Supporting rules add pressure or variety without becoming equally deep. Decorative systems can remain abstracted because the game hasn’t taught players to rely on them. The hierarchy also helps teams make decisions when production becomes difficult. If a feature threatens the non-negotiable rules, the feature changes. If a mission requires several central systems to stop functioning, the mission needs reconsideration. If an exception is necessary, the game communicates it honestly. Coherence stops being an accidental outcome and becomes a production discipline.
Insider Tip: Put the non-negotiable rules somewhere the entire team can see them. When scope changes, protect those rules before protecting isolated features that happen to be further through production.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Coherence is expensive because every reliable rule creates responsibility. The team needs to support its consequences, communicate its boundaries, test its combinations and maintain it when players apply pressure in places nobody included in the original demonstration. That doesn’t mean systemic design is reserved for enormous productions. Large budgets can create more systems, but they can also create more contradictions, exceptions and frightened meetings about why the player has placed a mission-critical character inside a moving vehicle. Small games can create deep systemic experiences by choosing a limited number of rules and connecting them meaningfully. The goal isn’t to reproduce reality. It is to create a dependable structure that supports the intended fantasy.
Designers need to decide what the world cares about. Which actions matter? Which consequences persist? Which knowledge should transfer? Which behaviours deserve to be recognised? Everything else can be simplified, abstracted or left outside the simulation. Disciplined scope makes coherence possible. It gives teams enough room to support the rules properly and gives players enough consistency to trust what they have learned. A coherent game doesn’t promise that everything is possible. It promises that the things it teaches players to believe will remain true when they try to use them.
That’s it for this one! Subscribe to The Design Lab for more breakdowns and analysis. Please like, share, and comment if you found this article useful AND…
Need help applying these concepts to your game? Most games don’t fail because of bad ideas. They fail because the systems don’t work together to evoke immersion.
> Work with me:
https://thedesignlab.blog/services/
> Or go deeper into this framework:
Register for my upcoming book – Immersive Design Framework – below and get a second book, now, free!
Grab Myles’ FREE ebook now and find 15 indispensable design patterns that will equip you to craft exceptional Web3 gaming experiences. We’ll also notify you when his new book on immersive design is out!