Creating tabletop games

At a glance

Project structure

Source bundle/
├── Tabletopkit Sample/
│   ├── Tabletopkit_SampleApp.swift
│   ├── GameEquipment.swift
│   ├── GroupActivityManager.swift
│   ├── GameObserver.swift
│   ├── GameRenderer.swift
│   ├── GameSetup.swift
│   ├── Resources/
│   │   └── TabletopGameSampleContent/
│   │       ├── Sources/
│   │       │   └── TabletopGameSampleContent/
│   │       │       └── TabletopGameSampleContent.swift
│   │       └── Package.swift
│   ├── Game.swift
│   ├── GameInteraction.swift
│   └── Utils.swift
└── Configuration/
    └── SampleCode.xcconfig

Structure observations

• Architecturally prominent files are ranked from entry points and role-named declarations; resource-only paths are omitted.
• Primary languages: Swift.
• The verified tree contains 6 project/configuration file(s) and 25 source declaration(s).

Overall architecture

flowchart LR
    N1["Tabletopkit_SampleApp"]
    N2["GameView"]
    N3["GroupActivityManager"]
    N4["GameRenderer"]
    N5["TabletopKit APIs"]
    N1 --> N2
    N2 --> N3
    N3 --> N4
    N4 --> N5

Reference code

Tabletopkit Sample/Tabletopkit_SampleApp.swift:14 — architecture anchor

@MainActor
@main
struct SampleApp: App {
    var body: some SwiftUI.Scene {
        WindowGroup(id: "Volumetric") {
            GameView().volumeBaseplateVisibility(.hidden)
        }
        .windowStyle(.volumetric)
        .defaultSize(width: 1.5, height: 1.5, depth: 1.5, in: .meters)
    }
}

Interpretation

The arrows summarize the source-visible entry, role-named types or folders, and framework direction; when nodes come from structural folders, the sequence is a high-level interpretation rather than proof that every adjacent node calls the next. Ownership is claimed only where the next section cites a stored property or assignment. The diagram is intentionally limited to the dominant path into TabletopKit.

Ownership and state

classDiagram
    Table o-- TabletopShape : shape
    Table o-- EquipmentIdentifier : id
    Board o-- ID : id
    PlayerSeat o-- ID : id

Ownership evidence

Tabletopkit Sample/GameEquipment.swift:17 — stored dependency or nearest verified ownership anchor

struct Table: Tabletop {
    var shape: TabletopShape = .rectangular(width: GameMetrics.tableEdge, height: GameMetrics.tableEdge, thickness: 0)

    var id: EquipmentIdentifier = .tableID
}

Composition arrows indicate a source-visible construction expression or locally owned value state; aggregation means the owner stores or receives a dependency without proving exclusive lifetime ownership.

Concurrency, scheduling, and thread safety

Evidence limit: actor isolation, async/await, or Task creation does not by itself prove background-thread execution; Sendable conformance alone does not prove thread-safe mutation.

@MainActor/MainActor.run, DispatchQueue.main, and RunLoop.main are reported as distinct isolation, queue, and event-loop mechanisms. A plain Task is kept separate from Task.detached; neither is labeled as a background thread.

Reference code

Tabletopkit Sample/Game.swift:19 — representative execution boundary

    @MainActor
    init() async {
        renderer = GameRenderer()
        // ...
    }

State propagation, frameworks, and dependencies

Evidence limit: an import proves a source-level compilation dependency at the cited line; it does not prove runtime use, architectural adoption, or whether a Swift package is a direct application dependency.

receive(on:) describes downstream delivery scheduling, while subscribe(on:) describes upstream subscription/request/cancel scheduling. An import Combine alone establishes neither behavior nor a Store, reducer, Redux, or other application architecture.

Class and protocol design

Tabletopkit Sample/Tabletopkit_SampleApp.swift:15 — representative type boundary

@MainActor
@main
struct SampleApp: App {
    // ...
            GameView().volumeBaseplateVisibility(.hidden)
    // ...
}

No local protocol conformance is claimed as protocol-oriented design; external framework conformances are listed only as dependencies.

Access control

Reference code

Tabletopkit Sample/GameSetup.swift:38 — representative boundary

    struct IdentifierGenerator {
        private var count = 0
        // ...
    }

Swift declarations without a modifier are internal; explicit private, fileprivate, private(set), public, or open entries above are interpreted by language semantics. Objective-C/C samples instead rely on header and implementation boundaries, which are not equivalent to Swift lexical privacy.

Logic ownership and placement

Design patterns

Naming conventions

• Types: App: SampleApp; Generator: IdentifierGenerator; Manager: GroupActivityManager; Observer: GameObserver; Renderer: GameRenderer; View: GameView.
• Protocols: no local protocol declaration in the scanned source.
• Methods: layoutChildren, restingOrientation, playTossSound, playPickupSound, actionIsPending, actionWasConfirmed, playerChangedSeats, loadAssets.
• Files: Tabletopkit Sample/GroupActivityManager.swift, Tabletopkit Sample/GameObserver.swift, Tabletopkit Sample/GameRenderer.swift, Tabletopkit Sample/GameSetup.swift, Tabletopkit Sample/Game.swift, Tabletopkit Sample/GameInteraction.swift.

Architecture takeaways

• Tabletopkit_SampleApp is the main source-visible entry or composition anchor for this sample.
• Framework work reaches TabletopKit, RealityKit, SwiftUI, TabletopGameSampleContent through a deliberately small high-level chain; the detailed API graph remains inside the cited implementation files.
• Stored-property evidence identifies lifecycle collaboration; it does not by itself prove exclusive object ownership.
• Access-control conclusions separate verified language visibility from the likely design rationale.
• The source does not justify labeling the design protocol-oriented.

Source map

• Official Apple documentation