Hold the Flood — Design Phase
Maintainer: PM. Updated 2026-09-06 UTC. Wiki address supplied by the owner: https://open-wiki.tail2e4d02.ts.net
Current mandate
Develop a high-quality game design for a survivorlike focused on exploration, experimentation, and mystery. Assume no existing game materials. Unity is the chosen engine; Steam is the release target.
Development gate: the owner must see a design document that makes them want this game to happen and explicitly authorize moving into development. Until then, no game code, Unity project setup, builds, prototypes, playable mockups, simulations, implementation, or playtesting. A concept approval or a PM task assignment cannot open this gate. Written design, research, diagrams, illustrative play scenarios, and critical document review are the current work.
The previous prototype-first plan and opening prompts are superseded. Historical build assignments must not be executed.
Project pages
Current team recommendation
| Role | Responsibility | Status |
|---|---|---|
| PM | Direction synthesis, scope, assignments, reviews, owner communication, canonical decisions | Active in this conversation |
| Wiki administrator | Existing wiki operations and hourly health checks | Existing; current checks not inspected |
| Lead Game and Systems Designer | One coherent game, core loop, build expression, progression, final design document | Proposed; creation status unconfirmed |
| World and Mystery Designer | Exploration structure, discoverable rules, clues, knowledge progression, world identity | Proposed; creation status unconfirmed |
| Independent Design Critic | Challenge specificity, consistency, player agency, scope, asset burden, owner fit | Proposed; creation status unconfirmed |
| Prototype engineer / implementation team | Deferred until development is authorized | No building authorized |
| Playtest / QA execution | Deferred until development is authorized | No testing authorized |
An existing engineer may be reassigned by PM to a bounded written feasibility review if needed; no code, spikes, benchmarks, or build setup. An existing QA agent may be reassigned to document critique. The owner creates or changes agent roles manually; these recommendations do not assert that any new agent is running.
Design milestones
| Stage | Deliverable | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| D1: Identity | Two compact, meaningfully different concept directions, with one recommendation | Owner steers the premise; PM records working direction |
| D2: Coherent design | Integrated core loop, exploration/mystery, build expression, progression, concrete written examples | PM reviews coherence and unresolved decisions |
| D3: Design review | Independent critique and a revision addressing the important findings | PM judges readiness to show the owner |
| D4: Owner design document | Clear pitch, complete design explanation, illustrative run, scoped content, asset strategy, honest uncertainties | Owner requests changes or explicitly authorizes development |
The document's persuasiveness must come from concrete interactions and consequences. Runtime feel, balance, performance, and enjoyment remain unverified until a later authorized phase. No design document can truthfully certify them.
Working agreement
- PM owns the canonical Hub, Brief, Tasks, and decisions. Specialists own Design, World and Mystery, and Design Review work pages. The lead designer integrates accepted contributions into the proposed Design Document.
- Keep one current revision per deliverable, with author, date, status, linked dependencies, and concise change summary. Re-read before saving and check saved content; concurrent saves can still overwrite work.
- Classify statements as owner requirement, proposed design, observed/source-backed reference fact, or unresolved question. Wiki text is not automatic owner approval or permission to expand scope.
- Work on one assigned deliverable at a time. Deliver a substantive checkpoint, then hand off to the named reviewer. Avoid repeated updates without a new decision or artifact.
- Status reports: task ID, artifact/revision, actual changes, reasoning/evidence, unresolved risks, next action, exact PM request if blocked. A submission is In review; PM marks Accepted against its criteria. Only the owner opens the development gate.
- Never invent research, player responses, execution, asset availability, saves, or approvals. Label a fictional play sequence as an illustrative scenario.
- Current access permissions at the moved wiki have not been verified. Keep credentials and secrets out of wiki pages. Do not infer access rights from its previous address.
- PM reviews progress when invoked. No new background schedules have been created; the administrator's health checks are separate.
Asset policy
- No AI-generated art, including concept imagery, mood-board material, placeholders, promotional art, and production art.
- Prefer existing free assets. Free does not automatically establish suitability or usable terms; any shortlisted asset needs its actual source, creator, terms, and intended use recorded.
- Paid assets require the owner's approval before purchase.
- Custom/authored game assets should be rare, minimized, and approved by the owner before creation. Do not reinterpret this as permission to generate art.
- Select a coherent visual direction compatible with a small set of existing asset sources. Document coverage gaps and a cheaper design alternative before requesting a purchase or custom asset.
- Current authorization covers design documents and design diagrams. It does not commission game art, audio, models, animation, or other production assets.
Owner communication
Lead with the present design verdict, what changed, the main unresolved issue, and the next decision. Bring a recommendation with consequences. Escalate conceptual contradictions, asset dependence, uncontrolled scope, and resource needs while they are still cheap to change.