DEV Community

Adam
Adam

Posted on

Comparing Drawing Game Architectures - Skribbl, Gartic Phone, and Artbitrator

#architecture #gamedev #systemdesign #webdev

Three Approaches to Online Drawing Games

The drawing game genre has three dominant architectures:

  1. Turn-based guessing (Skribbl, Drawasaurus)
  2. Telephone chain (Gartic Phone)
  3. Simultaneous competition (Artbitrator)

Each solves the "multiplayer drawing" problem differently. Here's a technical comparison.

Skribbl Architecture: Turn-Based Simplicity

Skribbl's approach is straightforward:

  • One player draws
  • Others type guesses
  • Server validates guesses against the secret word
  • Points awarded, next player's turn 
[Drawer] --> Canvas Data --> [Server] --> [Viewers]
[Viewers] --> Guesses --> [Server] --> Validate --> Points
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Advantages:

  • Simple server logic
  • Low bandwidth (only one canvas to sync)
  • Easy to scale

Disadvantages:

  • Players wait during others' turns
  • No simultaneous interaction
  • Engagement drops during waiting periods

Gartic Phone Architecture: Async Chain

Gartic Phone uses asynchronous rounds:

  • Everyone writes a prompt
  • Everyone draws someone else's prompt
  • Everyone guesses someone else's drawing
  • Chain revealed at the end 
Round 1: [All Players] --> Write Prompts --> [Server stores]
Round 2: [All Players] --> Draw (assigned prompt) --> [Server stores]
Round 3: [All Players] --> Guess (assigned drawing) --> [Server stores]
Reveal: [Server] --> Compile chains --> [All Players]
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Advantages:

  • Everyone active simultaneously
  • No waiting between turns
  • Hilarious results from miscommunication chains

Disadvantages:

  • Complex state management
  • Long total game time
  • No real-time interaction between players

Artbitrator Architecture: Real-Time Competition

Artbitrator takes a different approach:

  • All players draw the same prompt simultaneously
  • AI evaluates all canvases in real-time
  • First correct AI guess wins 
[All Players] --> Canvas Data --> [Server] --> Broadcast to all
                                     |
                                     v
                              [AI Evaluation]
                                     |
                                     v
                              [Commentary + Winner Detection]
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Advantages:

  • Constant engagement (always drawing or watching)
  • Real-time feedback from AI
  • Competitive tension throughout

Disadvantages:

  • Higher server load (multiple canvases + AI)
  • More complex synchronization
  • AI accuracy affects gameplay fairness

Bandwidth Comparison

For a 12-player game:

Game Data per second Notes
Skribbl ~5 KB One canvas, text guesses
Gartic Phone ~2 KB Async, no real-time sync
Artbitrator ~60 KB 12 canvases, real-time sync

Artbitrator's bandwidth is higher but manageable with stroke batching and delta compression.

Server Complexity

Game State to Track Real-time Requirements
Skribbl Current drawer, word, scores Low
Gartic Phone All prompts, drawings, guesses None (async)
Artbitrator All canvases, AI state, timing High

Which Architecture Wins?

It depends on the experience you want:

  • Casual party game: Gartic Phone's telephone mechanic creates laughs
  • Classic Pictionary feel: Skribbl's turn-based format is familiar
  • Competitive drawing: Artbitrator's simultaneous format adds tension

Play and Compare

Try each approach yourself:

For a detailed feature comparison, see our complete guide to drawing games in 2026.

Top comments (0)