Plan and test game mechanics

A mechanic needs an observable rule: an action, a change in state and feedback to the player. Before adding more systems, test whether the first action, win condition and restart work together. The existing guides below provide the starting workflow and debugging checks.

Open Mechanics collection ↗

Prepare a game for publishing

Publishing starts with a game that can be tested, understood and maintained. Check the available creator controls, audience settings and safety requirements before a release. Use the publishing guide for the sequence, and the troubleshooting guide for an actual blocked step.

Open Publish collection ↗

BC-0174 · TROUBLESHOOTING

Editorial review 2026-09-26

Win Condition Does Not Trigger

If the win rule is already defined but victory sometimes fails to trigger, compare the order in which its conditions become true. Reaching the goal before the objective changes can behave differently from completing the objective before entering the goal. Record that difference without assuming which hidden event or script is responsible.

Symptom

A defined win rule is not recognized for a particular ordering of objective completion and goal interaction.

Immediate action

Establish whether the design requires a final action or state-based recognition, then record the actual event order.

Diagnostic branches

The intended final action or ordering is not specified.: Clarify the success contract before labeling an order as faulty.
The objective was satisfied first and subsequent goal entry wins.: Retain that working sequence as the comparison baseline.
The player was already at the goal when the last prerequisite changed, and the intended state-based win is missed.: Request recognition for that order without reducing the objective requirements.
A later goal entry wins and that fresh entry is intentional.: Clarify the player-facing final-action instruction rather than replacing the rule.
No safe alternate order is available in the game.: Keep the single observed sequence and its uncertainty; do not edit the project solely to manufacture a test.

Least-destructive change

Resolve the missing order-sensitive recognition while preserving the defined objective and avoiding repeated reward activation.

Retest

Each safely available event order produces the outcome required by the same explicit rule.
A prerequisite that remains unmet still prevents completion.
The previously working order continues to succeed after the correction.
Unavailable comparison sequences remain untested rather than reported as passes.

Escalation

If the discrepancy persists, provide the intended ordering rule and observed sequence comparison. The trace can demonstrate inconsistent recognition but cannot identify an internal script, listener or stored-state cause by itself.

Working notes

Copy the existing success rule before testing. Does it require entering the goal after finishing the objective, selecting a completion action, or simply being in the goal while the objective is satisfied? These rules are not interchangeable. When the intended order is unspecified, resolve that design ambiguity first rather than declaring every delayed win a defect.

Compare ordinary safe sequences that reach the same required state in different orders, only if the game permits them. Keep the project version and round preconditions fixed. Record when the objective display changes, when the goal is entered and whether completion follows. If an order cannot be performed without editing the game, mark it unavailable instead of manufacturing a diagnostic setup.

For the failure sequence, note the next harmless action that makes recognition occur, if one is already observed. Leaving and re-entering the goal after the objective changed is useful evidence of order-sensitive behavior, but it does not prove a specific listener or update bug. If a later goal entry is the intended rule, improve its instruction rather than changing the behavior to automatic completion.

Write a correction in terms of the authored rule and the missing order. For a state-based goal, recognition should follow when the last required state becomes true while the player is already present. For an explicit final-action goal, make that action and its unmet requirements clear. Preserve the original objectives and keep rewards out of repeated diagnostic triggering.

Examples

Hypothetical order comparison in a puzzle whose existing symbol control is reachable from both sides of the goal boundary: aligning the last symbol before entering the goal wins; entering first and aligning the symbol from there does not, even though the intended rule only requires presence plus alignment. Use this comparison only where the existing layout permits it; the differing order is evidence, not an internal-cause diagnosis.
Proposed state-based correction: Keep the existing symbol objective and goal area. Recognize completion when the final required symbol becomes aligned while the player is already in the goal, as well as when the player enters after alignment. Do not require leaving and re-entering unless that final entry is an intentional rule.
Sequence record: intended final-action requirement / objective becomes satisfied / goal entry / observed completion / later action that changed the outcome. Distinguish displayed prerequisite evidence from an assumption about the game's hidden state.