4K2F

Despite what some #Gamification experts (yes, I’m talking to you Andzrej) fun is an important element. NOW… Andzrej Marczewski is NOT wrong: Fun must be experienced as a consequence of the experience. Do not FORCE it. So, how do you design for it?

Nicole Lazzarro made this amazing thing called the FOUR KEYS TO FUN where she explains there are FOUR different kinds of FUN:

1. EASY FUN: The simplest kinds of fun. Popping bubble wrap, tearing up the paper of a plastic bottle, flipping a coin just for the sound, ringing the bell at the front desk. These are simple tasks that reward each player with simple and easy laughs… or at least a smile.
2. SERIOUS FUN: The kind of FUN you have when you are actually engaged in something. Let’s say you are in a meeting with your boss, you are making decisions and are being  taken seriously. You feel empowered and you suddenly realize you could be doing this more often. THAT is serious fun. Regardless of you laughing, you are actually feeling happy and want to be in that “zone”. It’s really relatable to the feeling of FLOW.
3. PEOPLE FUN: Everything we do is always more FUN with someone else. I try not to go into detail here, but it’s really all about making connection and social engagement. Imagine last scenario without your boss, other people in the room or a market to throw your ideas to. When we interact with others, we have a lot of emotional rewards. When we do that as part of a team, that’s really fun.
4. HARD FUN: How about long term rewards? How do you feel after working with your team on a VERY long project that finally came ouyt and everything went ok? That experience can’t be bought by money. The feeling is close to “FIERO” which comes exactly after FLOW. The fun you have when achieving HARD work

The Paradox

The harder for the Game Master, the easier for the players.

This idea came to me as a Dungeons and Dragons Game Master (which is pretty much the one skill you need to become a gamification designer). The thing is that the amount of rules the game master has to know is gigantic. A good Game Master goes on to read at least three complete manuals (that’s aroun 300 pages each) while the player can simply get his character sheet and simply play the game.

When you are a Game Master you have to build scenarios of possibilities. You N-E-V-E-R (and I can’t stress this enough) know how your players will play. They will use your own rules against you whenever possible.

Now, the paradox is there to tell you that the more time you invest in developing a #gamification system the more your players will be able to take from it.

However another thing comes to mind: Rules must be simple. Story however, can be as complex as it may.

Simple is VERY different from easy (golf, bowling, soccer). A simple set of rules will ensure your players stay bound by them without too much thought, but if the story is complex and has many plots and turns, players will focus on it rather than the rules.

Now, if the rules MUST be complicated, then use a tutorial, DO NOT throw all of them at once. If it’s a system that will be played over months or years, take the first three to four weeks to get the players on board (Yes, the ON-BOARDING phase that Yu Kai and Andrzej talk about).

The other problem is that you are NOT dealing with characters in a fictional space where physics don’t apply. You are tending to human beings who are as complex as possible and will seek all opportunities to cheat, game, defeat or whatever the system. It is a common phrase around game designers: “You should always design for cheaters”.

Make sure players can only “cheat” under YOUR terms. Think of the law principle that states that whatever is not forbidden is allowed, so always design with that rule in mind.

Can your players repeat a quest 20 times and level up each time? Should your players figure that out by themselves? Should the difficulty of the game rely on everyone behaving?

People LOVE rules. Rules help us keep it together and make sure to point out who isn’t playing by them.

Remember there is a HUGE line between making mistakes and cheating. One is completely OK, the last one should not allow the players to continue.

Take this four things into account always

• Make it FAIR
• Keep it Simple (stupid! –> K.I.S.S.)
• Make complex plots
• What’s not forbidden is allowed

What do you think? Is there anything else you should be thinking with this paradox?

Also read The Paradox of Play by Andrzej Marczewski

In #gamification we all know about FLOW. That feeling you get when you #almost achieve a goal but feel that you are actually about to get it. In proper terms, FLOW is where the difficulty of a challenge matches the skill of the player, however,  I want to talk about how players feel when they almost achieve their goals.

The feeling of fiero, that thing you do with your arms when your team scores a goal or how people feel at the end of a marathon, comes after a lot of hard work and expectation. Normally you can feel this via proxy, but when it comes to building experiences that make the players feel like that is a complete different story.

Trying to explain it through fancy terms as FLOW and FIERO will take a lot of time. The simplest way is to understand how YOU feel when you are attempting something and ALMOST achieve it. When we are faced with a challenge that matches our abilities (or close to match them) we get excited and want to actually do it.

Whatever activity you are havign the players do, make sure it goes according to their level of tolerance to frustration. If something is too hard, you let it go, you feel disappointed and look for easier challenges, if they are too easy, you get bored and lose interest because there is no challenge. That is wher ALMOST sums all I want to say really simple.

As long as the player is ALMOST capable to get the task done, they will want to try as many times as possible. When they finally achieve it then move to the next challenge with the same feeling. The magic number is 3 to 5 times. If it takes more than 5 times to get it right people will usually start feeling frustrated, although this completely depends on the person, 5 is perfectly reasonable. If it takes less than 3, then it might be too easy. This projection escaltes to the amount of challenges that must be easy or hard accordingly. So if 5 or more tasks in a row are super easy, then the player might get bored, but if less than 3 in a row, they might feel its too hard.

This numbers are NOT hard or strict and they should be dynamic. maybe first you give 5 easy tasks, then 2 hard ones then 3 easy then 4 hards and so on… Easy tasks taking one or two attempts and hard ones less than 5 (most of the time)