Full-chain game design philosophy: rules are set, results are random, and financial games.

I. Introduction: From Fomo3D to Rat Rooms, how on-chain games break the boundaries of gaming

In the crypto world, a type of game known as Fully On-Chain Games (FOCG) is quietly constructing a new paradigm that differs from traditional games. From the emergence of Fomo3D in 2018, to the Wolf Game that sparked a wave of on-chain farming craze, to Dark Forest, which introduced zero-knowledge proofs to build the dark forest universe, and finally to the new FOCG experiment Rat Room appearing in 2025, these games collectively showcase a core characteristic of on-chain games: rules are defined, results are random, creating a space for strategy and the charm of game theory in the tension between certainty and uncertainty.

Compared to the financial logic of DeFi and the social networks of SocialFi, this type of on-chain game is neither a "play tool" nor a "money-making machine"; instead, it is a form of on-chain native game that deeply integrates gaming, assets, and rules. What design philosophies are unique and indispensable to FOCG that directly drive its development forward?

We might as well start our analysis from a few typical cases.

2. Analysis of Typical FOCG Cases

1. Fomo3D: Death Countdown and Prisoner's Dilemma

Fomo3D is one of the early game experiments on Ethereum. It designed a seemingly simple mechanism: each purchase of a Key extends the countdown, and the last buyer will win the prize pool. However, the key point is: the contract rules are completely transparent and immutable, the countdown runs on-chain, and every change in Gas could disrupt the prediction in the final seconds.

The innovation of Fomo3D lies in combining financial incentives (jackpot) with gamification psychology (snatching the last hit), creating a collective panic-based game that forms a mechanism of FOMO where players "hope others take over, yet fear missing out."

Fomo3D Official Website:

2. Wolf Game: on-chain asset composability farm

Wolf Game introduces two types of assets, wolves and sheep, and combines on-chain staking yield mechanisms, theft mechanisms, and inflationary economic design to create an "value game + NFT ownership" on-chain farming simulator. Players must constantly make judgments between staking (earning Wool) and exiting (being stolen).

The game promotes the ideas of "gaming is finance" and "NFTs are means of production" through minimalist mechanisms and on-chain execution, becoming a classic case of financial design in the field of blockchain games.

Wolf Game Official Site:

3. Dark Forest: Exploration, Collision, and Resource Competition in the Darkness

Dark Forest uses zero-knowledge proofs (zkSNARKs) to hide the game map, preventing players from knowing the full layout in advance. Players need to deploy spaceships to explore, occupy planets, and calculate profit paths.

This is an on-chain game that introduces incomplete information games: the rules are set in stone by smart contracts, but the exploration paths and opponent behaviors create randomness and uncertainty, making each game unpredictable, resulting in a high depth of strategy and competitive tension among players.

Dark Forest Official Website:

4. Rat Room: A high-frequency financial-style bet lasting 30 minutes per round.

Rat Room is a very novel FOCG experiment that builds a bilateral market between two roles: "room creators" and "mouse players". Each room has an independent mechanism (asset entry and exit logic), and players bet in different rooms, attempting arbitrage to win the most tokens.

It emphasizes quick trial and error and arbitrage strategies, replacing long-term growth with high-frequency gaming, defining victory or defeat in terms of "value increase or decrease" within 30 minutes.

The Rat Room presents a new idea: game mechanics are contract logic, player behavior is financial operation, strongly reflecting the financialization philosophy of FOCG.

Rat Room Official Website:

Three, the three unique underlying design philosophies of FOCG

1. Rules determined + Results random: The new narrative paradigm of on-chain games

FOCG's most representative underlying philosophy is: highly deterministic rules + highly uncertain outcomes.

Rule determinism comes from the unchangeable nature after the contract is deployed: every action, resource change, and time progress is driven by on-chain verifiable logic, without the need for GM (Game Master) intervention, and no one can cheat.

But at the same time, uncertainty exists in large amounts in:

• The game path of player behavior (Fomo3D last 1 second)
• Incomplete information about opponent actions (Spaceships in the Dark Forest)
• Path dependence of dynamic asset allocation (Wolf Game's stealing system)
• Arbitrage structure built from room parameters (Rat Room)

This tension structure has created a new narrative paradigm for on-chain games: it unfolds not around plot, characters, and upgrades, but around rules and human nature, probability and game theory. FOCG is like an "open maze," with clear rules, but a chaotic outcome, interpreted by everyone together.

This is also why many players experience an unprecedented sense of tension in these FOCGs: everything is calculable but unpredictable.

2. The game is a financial gaming arena: the structured drive of incentive mechanisms.

FOCG is not a "money-making game"; it is about structuring gaming behavior into financial behavior.

This structure is reflected in three aspects:

• Assetization: Almost all resources in the game can be transferred, combined, and sold (such as the sheep NFTs and Wool tokens in Wolf Game)
• Financial Incentive Driven: Player behavior is not for advancing the plot, but to optimize profit strategies, much like investors optimizing asset allocation.
• Mechanization of Profit Game Theory: Instead of relying on a reward pool design for incentives, it generates "game dynamics" through the rules themselves, such as stealing mechanisms and resource hedging.

The design of this financial gaming arena makes FOCG no longer a one-way "leveling up", but a continuous game and cyclical arbitrage, which is an on-chain native "strategy competition" model.

3. Composability and User Autonomy: Building the Meta-Game Ecosystem

Compared to Web2 games that focus heavily on IP, content, and lightly on tools, FOCG tends to provide a minimum viable ruleset (MVRG) and then allows players to co-create:

• Wolf Game has spawned numerous derivative games and modular gameplay combinations
• Dark Forest Encouragement Plugin, Alliance System and Exploration Algorithm Co-creation
• Rat Rooms has opened a room building mechanism, allowing users to customize the gaming arena

This composability and player autonomy is one of the core distinctions of on-chain games compared to Web2: it is not about building a closed content universe, but about creating a rule universe with "self-organizing potential."

4. Comparison with Traditional On-Chain Applications: Why These Philosophies Are Necessary Conditions for FOCG's Success

We might as well compare the three unique design philosophies mentioned above with other typical on-chain applications:

| Underlying Philosophy | FOCG | DeFi | SocialFi | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Rules Determined + Results Random | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | | Game is Financial Game | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | Composability and User Autonomy | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |

• DeFi emphasizes financial composability and deterministic execution, but lacks the combination of "strategy space + uncertainty."
• SocialFi emphasizes user participation and incentive mechanisms, but often lacks rule-based games and gameplay depth.
• Only FOCG integrates determinism and game theory deeply, thus creating an experience loop that combines "non-linear narrative + strategic competition + financial motivation".

These unique philosophies are not just embellishments, but the "foundation" that supports the establishment of FOCG.

V. Conclusion: Insights of a New Paradigm

From Fomo3D to Dark Forest, from Wolf Game to Rat Room, the continuous evolution of FOCG indicates that on-chain games are not just about moving Web2 games onto the chain, nor are they financial tools disguised for earning coins. They demonstrate another possibility: building a chaotic world in deterministic contracts with rules as the text and players as variables.

Deterministic rules + uncertain outcomes, deep integration of strategy games + financial incentives, are the structural cornerstones of FOCG and also the common elements of current typical FOCGs.

How will FOCG develop in the future? Will it be empowered by AI to generate dynamic narratives and intelligent opponents, creating a truly "living game world"? Or will it deeply integrate with on-chain social interactions, where players not only compete for resources but also for relationships and reputation? These are still unknown to us. But what is certain is that underlying design philosophies such as "rules are determined, results are random," "gaming is finance," and "systems are composable" have become the foundation for the establishment of FOCG and its gradual breaking of the Web2 game paradigm.

These philosophies not only shape the current depth of gameplay and user engagement of FOCG, but also provide guidance for building a more complex, enduring, and autonomous on-chain game ecosystem in the future. Regardless of how technology evolves or narratives change, as long as these philosophies continue and expand, FOCG still has the opportunity to lead a truly native gaming revolution in the Web3 world.