Following up on the initial thoughts on Rational Design, I wanted to dig deeper to provide the Why, What and How of the process, using examples and hints on the way to build deliverables. The goal is to look at some of the theory behind it, yes, but also actionable ways to approach Game Design in a rational manner, regardless of your project, team size and personal experience. This journey will be cut in 3 pieces, each with an overarching theme: the Player, the Game and the Work.
It is often said that Design, especially Game Design, is perceived as the “Realm of Ideas”, i.e. designing is coming up with ideas. My answer to this misconception is that designing is actually coming up with answers, solutions. On a good day, that solution might also end up being a good idea. Why is this distinction so important? Well, games are an interactive medium, as in, they do not exist in a vacuum, but only through the experience of the user. Whether you use the medium of videogame to craft a product or a purely artistic experience, the nature of the medium itself is centered around the idea of a User using a System through Rules. Another lens used to look at this distinction is saying that, basically, as a Designer, you are your worst enemy, the main hurdle to overcome on the path to perfecting your craft. Why? If you look for a “good idea” while letting your own perception of “cool” drive your creative process, you are blinding yourself to the other users as a whole, all billions of them. While working on AAA titles, we used to jokingly tell junior designers, about an idea they were very attached to: “yeah, YOU like it...how many copies of the game will you buy? Not even one, you’re getting yours for free”.
So, in essence, while your own guts, feelings, preferences and pet peeves are not to be ignored, they should never be the driving force behind your design work. The first impulse should come from deep knowledge of the Users, who they are, what makes them tick, how they learn, etc. After all, you want as many of them as possible to be drawn to your game, really get into it and stay in it, forever!
In this first segment, we will look at the Users, your Players. We will look at some of the theory behind how to “map” the users and features into workable categories to inform your design decisions and how to break down the intricate notion of motivation. In all cases, we will look for actionable tools, documents and deliverables, while giving examples and warnings along the way. Let’s dive!
In many design-centric fields, like architecture and industrial design, User Modeling is a no-brainer, a go-to step that’s always undertaken in the early days of the Design process. In videogames, that notion is somewhat more recent, and was met quite often with distrust and disdain: putting labels on people, dropping players in buckets and categories is some evil marketing scheme that ignores the marvelous complexity of human nature, etc. But really, if I ask you a simple question, such as: “who is this game for?” Every answer you can provide will take you down the path of simplification, archetypingand demographics. As it should. While it might be impossible to hold a mental image of every single possible player of your game, you should look not for how they are different from others, but rather what they have in common. User Modeling is diverse, complex and all in shades of gray, but is an important first step to “designing with intentions''.
The First Rule of User Modeling, and not a very popular opinion, is: use every model you find, for every model is right in its own way. As a designer, your first task should be to look at a model and find the value in that model, i.e. what is this model doing better than the other models, or what does it focus on? This exercise will have many benefits: first, it will take you away from the rather amusing but pointless exercise of looking for the “best model” and spending countless hours with fellow designers arguing on the merits of your favorite one. Second, when looking at any model, it will help you distinguish between the useful and less useful parts of that model. Finally, getting a 360 degree view of that field is the best gateway into humanistic and behavioral psychology, a science with many critical learnings to be applied by game designers.
Here’s a shortlist of my favorite models to consider while building your knowledge on the topic, why I feel they add value and a simple warning on their limitations.
Richard Bartle’s Taxonomy of Player Types (1996):
How can I use this model?:
Like all models, it would be ideal to have part of your potential player base take the test beforehand so you could work off actual data on that population...which pretty much never happens. So, the next best thing you can do, with any model, really, is to look at what your game is offering, your current intentions, and to map those on the player types represented here. This is a way to challenge your design intentions and validate your choices: “What are we giving to these guys? Don’t we have too many features speaking only to this crowd? Are we ok with this?” You might end up not changing anything to the game direction, but doing so with intention is the important thing here.
Take the chart, map features and keywords inside it and create a short slide presentation explaining your intentions in regards to the player types.
Why is this the best model?:
It is deeply rooted in videogames study, so it feels closest for most designers and is therefore easy to use
It teaches that no one is only one thing
It teaches that our preferences and inclinations can vary depending on context, so our score might change between a FPS or a MMORPG, for example
Why is this the worst model?:
Bartle’s Taxonomy is often criticized for the dichotomous nature of the questions, the oversimplification of players and what motivates them, etc
If you think using only this model will give you a deep understanding of human nature, well, yeah, you’ll be disappointed
Nicole Lazarro’s Four Keys to Fun (2004):
How can I use this model?:
This model has a lot going on to help you use it properly. It defines action verbs and links them to specific emotions and types of fun. Also, it looks into things you can do to increase or decrease the predominance of a certain type of fun. So this model is really not about classifying the user with a label so much as to think on the desired Player Experience you are trying to generate (presumably linking that to other models that can help you categorize your players) and then mapping your design intentions, again, to challenge your feature set, your development priorities. Players typically switch between “fun modes” over the course of a play session. Having 3 potential types of fun present is the best guarantee to draw players and keep them engaged.
Create a short slide presentation detailing how you generate each of the 4 types of fun, using your feature set, key moments in the game, etc.
Why is this the best model?:
It is centered around the idea of Player Experience
It examines the emotions created by the various interactions
It thinks about how different objectives, challenges and rewards will make people do things differently, for different reasons
Why is this the worst model?:
It teaches you close to nothing about the players themselves, who they are, what they’re made of, etc
It “only” shows what could happen to them once they interact with a set of systems and design intentions
Using this model alone will not tell you much about the user personas themselves
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954):
How can I use this model?:
No, your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Maslow’s Pyramid, the most “overrated” and “overused” piece of psycho-pop of the 20th century, part of every HR and entry-level business class out there. But there are some really good reasons to consider the Pyramid for your design toolbox (also, the full thing is worth a read). The key here is order and prioritization. Everyone needs certain things to be fulfilled before they worry about more complex stuff. That’s the lesson. Teach the Health System before expecting the player to join a guild, etc.
Break down your current feature set and map it over the Pyramid, trying to determine where every feature lies; what needs it can fulfill. You will quickly see if you have balance and progression issues in your overall proposition, if your game is “bottom-heavy” or “top-heavy, for example.
Why is this the best model?:
It doesn’t come from videogames specifically, so it’s not blind sighted by its own medium
