Categorizing Experience-based Design: Thematic Transportation

If you skipped my post on other models, here's a quick takeaway. Immersion can be divided into absorption and transportation. Absorption is related to flow theory (which I classify as less of an emotional state than a state of altered consciousness). Any game can be absorbing, so I don't use absorption when looking at how to divide game experiences. Transportation is a reference to narrative transportation theory, the idea you can get "lost in a story" or "enter a game world." Now, let's get back to emotion-based experiences.

The second category of experience-based/emotion-based games is thematic transportation-driven design (TTDD). I use the term ‘thematic transportation,' because ‘narrative transportation’ has a distinct literary definition that implies the existence of a traditional story structure and text or script that I do not think is required in order to achieve transportation into the world of a game. Where thematic transportation differs from narrative transportation theory is that both the ‘narrative’ and the characters can be minimally developed and still create a sense of leaving reality. Narrative transportation theory requires players to experience empathy and mental imagery in order to experience suspended reality. (According to scholars, read more here.) From the standpoint of reading a novel or playing D&D, this makes sense. However, when playing a game or watching a movie, imagery is largely provided visually. Perhaps this is an impediment for these genres that they have to overcome to achieve narrative transportation, but it does not seem that way. I allow mental imagery as an optional aspect of thematic transportation, but I place emotional simulation as the required element. Emotional simulation is players having an array of feelings that match what the characters would be feeling when experiencing the events of the game. This also diverges from the definition of empathy found in narrative transportation. Empathy in narrative transportation involves feeling the emotions of the characters, or bleed. In board games, players may or may not experience bleed from the characters. Players may not identify strongly with a character. Indeed, the characters may not be more than simple portrait art. The reason this diverges from (this definition of) empathy is that players do not have to pretend they are acting as another person. Often in board games, the players experience the emotional content of the game as if they were characters in the world, similar to the process of an actor doing a "magic if" exercise—"if I were in this situation, how would I feel?" The difference is that emotion in narrative transportation theory is created by looking in from the outside. Actors create emotion internally that gets expressed outwardly. However, actors use concrete items and actions as fuel for characterization. Many actors will insist on rehearsing in their character's (literal) shoes because how someone moves is directly connected to how they display emotion. In games, mechanics can act as character shoes, providing a structural reinforcement for an emotional journey. So, regardless of whether a game has a full narrative, if the players go on an emotional journey that mimics the story arc or thematic arc of the game, thematic transportation has taken place.

When designing TTDDs, thematic emotional content is prioritized. The emotions of thematic transportation games are more complex and subtle than emotion-driven games. There are three elements of TTDDs: thematic actions, scripted narrative, and evocative theming. These can be deployed singularly or in combination to achieve a TTDD. 

Often these designs seek to simulate an experience, to make the game task feel real and important to players. Simulative actions closely tie theme (and its emotional content) with mechanism (and its emotional content.) The actions of the game need to trigger an emotional response that helps build the ‘simulation’ of the world. As much as possible, sensory and mental input should be used to reinforce the veracity of the thematic world. Simulative actions are tied to suspension of disbelief and sensory feedback, real or sympathetic. A game about bomb diffusal, such as Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, is thematically transportive without requiring the trappings of a narrative framework. By having emotionally-charged simulative actions, players feel as if they are actually accomplishing the tasks in the game. Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes is a video game/party game hybrid, however we can easily see the application to board games. It is a great example of simulative action in isolation from other TTDD elements: it has no scripted narrative and players play as themselves becoming the characters in the emergent story.

Some designs use scripted narrative to emotionally connect and ‘transport’ the players to the game world. Scripted narratives leverage the elements of narrative transportation, providing world details that encourage players to ‘enter’ the world of the game. Scripted narrative may appear as gameplay introduction lore, chapter breaks (similar to cut scenes in video games), or flavor text sprinkled throughout the game. The art and graphics of a game supply a supporting visual narrative that can add depth of detail without adding unnecessary pages to the ‘script.’ Campaign and legacy style games make frequent use of scripted narrative. 

Evocative theming is the element a designer can add to an emotion-driven design to get a TTDD. As discussed in the last post, in many EDDs, whether or not players engage deeply with the theme is largely dependent on a group’s proclivity. Evocative theming encourages engagement by providing relatable or exciting themes that stimulate the imagination. Anachrony takes loan mechanics from other euros and uses evocative theming to create a game with "time travel." Evocative theming focuses on how ideas resonate with players.

Intellectual themes, such as detective games where the primary focus of gameplay is logic, require extra world building and narrative building to be truly transportive. Certain mechanisms, such as logic puzzles, can easily push aside imagination in players’ brains. Likewise, the more math-based a mechanism is, the more emotional content the game requires to reach thematic transportation. Take for example, the Exit games and compare the experience to Time Stories: Asylum. Thematic puzzles alone can make a game exciting and absorbing, but are not transportive in the same way a well-crafted narrative is. 

In conclusion, thematic transportation-driven designs differ from emotion-driven designs through the specificity and depth of experience they seek to create. A design goal for an EDD might be to make players feel tense; whereas a design goal for a TTDD could be to make players experience the specific tension of diffusing a bomb. Whether a game is an EDD or a TTDD is largely due to how it is executed and what elements it includes to allow for transportation. 

Categorizing Experience-based Design: Emotion-driven Design

In my introduction to this series, I described two umbrella categories for experience-based design: emotion-based designs and cognitive-based designs. Each of the main categories is described as "-driven design," highlighting that while games could fall into multiple categories, designers should be concerned with what is "driving" the ideal experience of their game. Under the emotion-based umbrella are emotion-driven design, thematic transportation-driven design, and empathy-driven design. Under the cognitive-based umbrella are intellect challenging design and education design. Today's post will detail what emotion-driven design is and how it differs from other emotion-based designs. 

Emotion-driven design (EDD) is focused on making "what players feel while playing” the most important part of the design. Other emotion-based designs are rooted in emotion, but emotion-driven design is about creating feelings for their own sake. EDDs are not always strongly connected to theme. Designs that focus on a singular desired emotion, I label as ‘simple-emotion’ driven designs (SEDDs). Designs that focus on two or more desired emotions are ‘complex-emotion’ driven designs (CEDDs). A hallmark of emotion-driven games is that the players feel the emotion as themselves and not as ‘bleed’ from their avatars. (More on that later.) These emotions largely arise from the mechanics and style of gameplay: real time games feel frenetic; push your luck games feel tense; etc. 

Simple emotion-driven games tend to pull a limited emotional spectrum from the mechanics (and dynamics) of the gameplay itself, as opposed to a narrative. Sometimes, individual emotions are focused on, such as the tense thrill of a good push-your-luck game. Quacks of Quedlinburg is an excellent example of a game driven by a singular emotional experience. Some critics argue that Quacks lacks a certain amount of strategy and tactics to be a good game, but I would argue that making Quacks a thinker game would destroy what makes it good: the emotional experience. And since Quacks is not Wolfgang Warsch's only foray into experience-based design (famously, The Mind), I think it is safe to say that the experience of playing Quacks is an intentional design choice. Racing games, gambling games, and some auction games all have similar emotional experiences. What makes those games fall clearly into the SEDD category is if the emotional experience appears to be the goal of the design. So, some auction games may capture the feeling of bidding at a live auction, whereas others emphasize the intellectual experience of calculating risk and reward.

Other examples of simple emotion-driven designs can include “cozy” games, dexterity games, mass market “take that” games, and social deduction games. There may still be an emotional arc to a SEDD, but the goal of the design is to produce a very specific emotional experience. Any emotion-based design has to go beyond the excitement of starting to play, the thrill of an early lead, the agony of defeat, etc. All games have an emotional experience of that sort. SEDDs drill down to consistently pull a particular strong emotion from players. The very singular nature of the focus forces the theme to the periphery the same way an abstract game with a pasted-on theme does. Distillation, even of emotions, will always abstract a theme. 

Complex emotion-driven designs seek to pull more than one specific emotion from players. An easy way to accomplish this is to have players swap roles at various points in the game, thus changing goals, such as in Sheriff of Nottingham. Players experience two very different emotions playing as the sheriff trying to catch smugglers and merchants attempting to bluff their way to market. However, simply switching roles does not make a game a CEDD. Citadels has a fairly uniform emotional journey regardless of which roles you chose throughout the game. Other examples of CEDDs include party games with judging mechanics, games with 2 distinct phases of gameplay, or scenario-based games. Conversely, one vs. all games typically have two very different emotional experiences for the players, but roles are not changed during a single game, so each player has a singular emotional experience. Because these asymmetric designs still require more emotional crafting by the designer than SEDDs, they fall under the label of complex emotion-driven designs. CEDDs have a more varied emotional experience, but still primarily access emotions through mechanics, although we do start to see immersive elements come through, as many CEDDs are more thematic, due to the fact that the experiences are more complex and thus easier to connect to theme. As a reminder, players generally do not identify with their role significantly in EDDs; they play as themselves taking game actions, not as characters taking story actions. Sometimes, whether a game is played as an CEDD or as a more narratively driven experience depends on the group of players. Games of this nature are usually touted as having “opportunity for role-play or story-telling,” but those elements are not required by the game. Thus many social deduction games, like Werewolf, can fall into either this category or the next one, thematic transportation-driven design.

In conclusion, emotion-driven designs accomplish their goal primarily through mechanisms. Mechanisms have an inherent emotional content apart from theme. Push Your Luck games feel very different from auction games. Theme in EDDs is mostly used as atmosphere that ideally reinforces the tone of the mechanisms. Games can explore one emotional experience or more than one, but to be an EDD a game must feel as if the main purpose of the game is to feel a certain way while playing it. 

The next post will cover thematic transportation-driven design, otherwise known as immersive games. 

Categorizing Experience-based Design: Other Models

If you are only casually into game design theory, you may want to skip this post. In the next post, I'll start talking about emotion-based designs. 

I don't think there are many particularly good models for the working designer (as opposed to the theorist) for experience-based design. The academic models I've looked at involve lots of dense reading with little return on investment in terms of practical advice. Mostly, the models are descriptive- an attempt to catalog and explain trends, experiences, and terminology in game design. Descriptive models are important to collectively expand our understanding of design, however in art descriptive models tend to lag behind the innovations being made. I think of prescriptive models as 'rules for design,' guidelines that (while breakable if you know what you're doing) advance the conversation of how to design. On this blog, I tend to be fairly prescriptive, using my fine arts background to offer alternate and parallel guidelines to the ones currently being passed from designer to designer. I am not disparaging the existing design standards, but seeking to fill the gaps I find. 

By far the most well known and used model is Marc LeBlanc's MDA, which stands for mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics. You can read more about it here. The short reason I actively avoid thinking about MDA except when writing something like this is that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that mechanics are the starting point of all design. A starting point, sure. Not THE starting point. I also think about design from an outside-in approach and MDA is very much an inside-out approach. Again, my main problem is the lack of territory this model covers, i.e. theme-first design, art-first design and experience-first design. 

Two competing models have been presented to replace MDA: DPE, or design, player, experience, and DDE, or design, dynamics, experience. You can read about them here. I don't find DPE to be very practically useful, even if I generally agree with it. DDE is strongly video game focused. I like its separation of the terms 'concept' and 'blueprint.' Importantly, DDE considers dynamics to be under the (partial) control of the designer and takes sensual, emotional, and cognitive experiences into account. Both models are more all-compassing than MDA. I disagree with some of its language around game narratives, but I believe this is a common problem when evaluating video game based philosophies for a board game space. DDE most closely aligns with what I write on this blog and I am glad to see these concepts discussed elsewhere, but the academic language limits its accessibility. Overall, however, I find all of these models to be interesting in the abstract but of limited usefulness as design tools. For instance, one of the pieces of advice for designers in the DDE framework is for video game designers to design iteratively. I do not recommend reading any of the links provided in this post if you are looking for design advice. 

Gil Hova's player/avatar/agent model is an excellent tool to pull a gameplay experience towards a richer thematic feel. You can read about it here (scroll down to the fourth section). This framework is an attempt to show how dynamics shift as the focus/closeness between player, theme, and mechanics shifts. The closer the player is to the avatar, the more 'immersive' the game is; the closer the player is to the agent/mechanics the more elegant the game is; the closer the avatar is to the agent, the more thematic the game is. While this absolutely models game experiences, it does so in a very neutral way, leaving room for designs that fall along the various spectrums between the nodes. [Side note, I want a better description of this model that is publicly shareable. The talk described in the link is available online, but only if you are a Tabletop Network attendee. I had to reference my notes from TTN for my explanation of the relationship between the elements. Edit: My wish has been granted and you can watch Gil's lecture here.] 

Now, we'll move into models that look at certain types of experiences. Marc LeBlanc's eight types of fun attempts to better define 'fun.' You can read the list here. The eight types are fairly self-explanatory and useful if you are wondering what fun is, but I don't find myself inspired or compelled toward creating a game when I read them. Rather, they seem like descriptors of elements found in every game to a greater or lesser degree. So, while this model does look at types of experiences, it does not offer a practical path forward for the designer. To support this claim, I would argue that the only time the eight types are brought up (that I have seen) is during designer discussions about the definition of fun, as opposed to as a dialogistic tool. [Quantic Foundry's gamer motivation model is similar in structure, but based on a huge data pool. It contains 12 categories. You can learn more about it here.]

Similar to how 'eight types' attempts to define fun, Gordon Calleja's player involvement model seeks to better define (and rename) 'immersion.' You can read about it here (just read the intro section). This model is video game focused (again), and some of the aspects, such as spatial, do not translate very well to board games. However, what I find most useful is Calleja's division of immersion into 'absorption' and 'transportation.' This distinction is very important in practice as many designers will use immersion to mean one or the other and spend a lot of time arguing at cross purposes. The 'player/avatar/agent' model uses immersion to mean transportation, as far as I can tell.

Speaking of absorption, that brings us to flow theory. You can read about it here. While absorption and flow are not identical, I believe they are on the same spectrum. However, I find flow to be a single note (albeit an important one) in the discussion of experiences while gaming. 

The 'transportation' described in the player involvement model is borrowed from narrative transportation theory. You can read about it here. The issue with discussion of narrative in general and narrative transportation in specific in games is that most narrative theory has been developed for literature, and thus speaks primarily to embedded narrative as opposed to emergent. Flow theory and narrative transportation theory aren't game-based models, but I list them here because they are important to the formation of my categories, in addition to providing greater understanding to the immersion debate. 

In the next several posts, I will be outlining my categories for experience-based design. In some ways, my categories resemble the eight types of fun: I am dividing and describing these experiences in a fairly descriptive way. However, I would say that, like fun and immersion, 'experience' needs a better definition in game design. This is my attempt.

Categorizing Experience-based Design: Introduction

I find taxonomy and language to be very helpful the design process. After all, it is easier to talk about "that type of game where you put out pawns to take actions" if we know we are talking about worker placement and not a tactical skirmish game. 

I also belong to the "design the game for the desired experience" club. Experience-based design was described to me as the philosophy held by industry folks that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet. I don't know if it's possible to categorize every type of experience to be had while playing a board game. However I am developing four broad categories that I think cover a lot of territory in "possible types of board game experiences."

My base assumption in delineating categories is that playing board games creates emotions in players that go far beyond "fun" and "not fun." My second assumption is that the average player experience is the one intended by the designer. By that I mean that I assume a game has been play tested and plays how the designer designed it to play. My third assumption is that creating certain emotions in players may be the end goal of the design or creating emotions may be a tool to reach the primary goal of the design.

In order to break experience-based design into categories, I looked at possible goals of design. I read and listen to a lot of other designers and reviewers, so a few themes were immediately evident. For others, I relied on my experience playing games. Any examples I use in future posts are meant to help explain the concepts I put forward, not an attempt to categorize those games. 

These categories are meant to aid designers who are trying to nail down the type of experience they want players to have. But because experiences are complex and varied, the lines between these categories are gray. Many games will fall into more than one category. The purpose of categorizing is to help us think about games, not to establish hard and fast rules. After all, design is art and not science. 

Finally, I discovered I needed two broader umbrella categories when I realized how many designers don't focus on player emotions per se. So, in a broad sense the two types of experience design are emotion-based designs and cognitive-based designs. Please reread the above paragraph about overlap, because it applies here too. However, I have noticed that many if not most designers have a strong inclination to one or the other. Also, these two buckets are useful when talking about the four main categories. 

The four categories (that I will discuss in future posts) are simple-emotion design, thematic transportation design, empathy-based design, and intellect-challenging design. I will touch on education design, but won't speak on it too much because it is far outside my areas of competence. I see 'serious games' as a different umbrella term which will have some overlap with the above categories. 

In the next post, I will discuss other models and why I don't just use those.