I haven't finish the document sadly because i would like to provide best exemple and deeper analysis on the good and bad of each principle and their possible contratiction. Each principle might end up being entry of the Design Cookbook.

Before we begin, I want to clarify that I followed a set of rules for this analysis: no tactical game elements, no focus on input actions, and no inclusion of card or deck-building mechanics.
 

1. Microeconomic System: Turn-based combat can be viewed as a microeconomic system where players aim to win trades. Designers increase its complexity and rewards by introducing progression elements that further complicate these trades.
    

2. Focus on Surprises and Adaptation: The design should focus on surprising players and forcing them to adapt, whether during or between fights. A balance of chaos and player agency is key to creating a dynamic experience.
    

3. Accumulation of Gameplay Loops: Turn-based combat systems are built upon the accumulation of gameplay loops, ranging from individual turns to entire battles and leveling up. Just like in a board game or a TCG, each turn should feel impactful.
    

4. Dynamism and Build-Up: Dynamism in turn-based combat is achieved through growth and build-up between turns, providing players with multi-turn goals. This adds complexity and prevents combat from dragging on.
    

5. Resource Management: A key aspect of turn-based combat is managing resources such as time (turns), life, mana, and action points. This management creates strategic depth and is essential for an engaging experience. Questions like how characters gain and spend resources, and whether they can gain or lose more, are crucial to consider.
    

6. Encounter Design: As designers, we shouldn't try to control player behavior, but we do want to control the encounter to nudge players into new territory and force adaptation. The game’s meta should evolve over time, ensuring encounters remain engaging and challenging.
    

7. Emotions: A range of emotions—both positive and negative—should be evoked, as this is essential for creating a lasting impact and preventing combat from becoming monotonous. This shouldn't apply to every encounter, but rather in medium- to large-scale loops (similar to roguelikes), aiming to make the experience addictive!
    

8. Disrupt Enemy Turn: Encounters should feature powerful enemy attacks that players can disrupt with specific actions, fostering short-term adaptation and strategic changes. This is a must-have for an in-depth system.
    

9. Reward System: Players should be consistently rewarded, with smaller rewards leading to larger ones, such as leveling up. Choices should feel impactful without overwhelming players with too many options. While this seems obvious, in the final article, I want to create a typology of rewards and explore the cost and benefits of each, as well as the trade-offs involved.
    

10. Conditions on Spells: Spells should feature conditions to make them more strategic and interesting. While entry-level spells may not have conditions, these should be introduced quickly to add depth to the gameplay. Extra effects can be obtainable directly from the spell itself or through the systems surrounding combat.
     

Side Note: As a designer, I’m not a fan of meta-centric design and prefer to let players experiment with builds. This allows the creation of powerful metas but not across the entire game or as a reward.