I submit another thesis, shorter, more to the point, more organised, and
more fact based. Hopefully this makes it easy enough to edit when it
ultimately and inevitably is given "REVISE AND RESUBMIT".
{Agoran Sources of Fun:
Shoving things into boxes.
0) Introduction
I'm writing an entirely different thesis, again. Hopefully this one is
focused and precise, and is easy-to-modify when, inevitably, (rightfully
due) criticism arrives. This thesis comes from a place where I do feel that
something exists that I want to address, but I haven't adequately or
scientifically done so, so I will try to base everything on external
sources/fact, then relate Agora to those sources, and keep all that
separate from my (valid) feelings about it all.
1) Sources
a) Atomic Dissections
[0] https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/pubs/MDA.pdf
The Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics framework of game design, along
with a sample breakdown of aesthetics you might examine.
[1]
https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/level-8-kinds-of-fun-kinds-of-players/
The 8 kinds of fun (aesthetic) in detail identified in [1].
(Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery,
Expression, and Submission)
[2]
https://www.gamified.uk/2013/06/05/gamification-user-types-and-the-4-keys-2-fun/
Lazarro's 4 kinds of fun: Friendship, Novelty, Challenge, and Meaning.
Along with Marczewski's 4 kinds of fun : Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery,
and Purpose.
(Purpose and meaning seem to go together, as do Challenge and Mastery.
Friendship is slightly different than Relatedness, because competition
isn't necessarily super friendly, but also fellowship from the 8 kinds of
fun)
[3] https://lushdesignsblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/anatomy-of-fun/
A listing of more taxonomies of fun. (just shows that there's no one
"correct" taxonomy)
[4]
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/bartle-s-player-types-for-gamification
Bartle's taxonomy is a framework to think about the players and how to
improve the engagement from that standpoint. (seems he later expanded this
into 8 types, but didn't go looking for it.)
Player types: Killer, Achiever, Socializer, Explorer.
[5] https://www.gamified.uk/user-types/
a different player taxonomy that builds directly off of Lazarro's with
another axis.
Player types:
Socialiser, Free Spirit, Philanthropist, and Achiever
Player (subtypes are) Self-seeker, Consumer, Networker, Exploiter
Disruptor (subtypes are) Griefer, Destroyer, Improver, Influencer
2) Relating To Agora
a) Classifying Things Into Player and Fun Taxonomies
Firstly, lets begin with (1a). An overview of this is that Agora is the
Dynamic play of modifying Mechanics[0]. The Aesthetic appeal of this, at a
high level then, is that all of the Aesthetics can, and do, apply. Using
many of the taxonomies provided, Agora can fill nearly any requirement. So
why bother?
In the context of Agora, I feel that the most helpful taxonomies are the
ones that reduce options to the least number of choices: for example
Bartle's Taxonomy[4], Marczewski’s Hexad [5], or Lazarro's 4 keys to fun
[2]. I say this because of what Agora is at its heart: a game of changing
the mechanics of itself. That and due to the relatively low amount of
players at any given time, a taxonomy will not be too helpful unless it can
capture larger swaths of the population. I think the point in bothering is
the similarities of the taxonomies, even if we don't have the exact right
complexities trapped within them.
That being said, given what Agora is at it's core, a game of nomic, of
self-amendment and change, then what are the core mechanics of Agora? I
would say that it would be getting players to agree to the game and changes
thereof.
That means, we have a few core mechanics:
Proposals, Judgement, Offices, Rules&Scams, Assets&Badges&Radiance (Points
by any other name), Voting, Blots (punishment by any other name), Degrees,
Subgames&Tourneys, and Contracts&Promises.
Relating these mechanics to the few main taxonomies (Marczewski's fun and
player types[2,5], Lazarro's fun types[2], and Bartle's player types[4]),
then, we have the following:
The proposal system generally maps to expression, novelty,
fellowship/relatedness, discovery, meaning, autonomy, and creativity, and
also is the most versatile mechanic of Nomic. It appeals to primarily to
free spirits, explorers, and disruptors due to this versatility.
The judgement system generally maps to relatedness/fellowship, narrative,
fantasy, meaning, and mastery. It appeals primarily to achievers and
philanthropists: to show a mastery over the ruleset and its interpretation
for the good of the game and the benefit of others, as well as being clear
and convincing requires strong dark arts of logic and historie. Notably,
these are decision points for the legal fiction.
Offices, generally, map to submission, fellowship/relatedness, narrative,
and purpose. It appeals primarily to philanthropists, improvers, and
influencers, as the habitual nature, and the tendency to reward those
offices, allows continued and meaningful interaction with the game and the
participants. Specifically, offices allow the narrative of each
participant's actions to have an effect.
Rules and scams generally map to fantasy, challenge, and discovery. They
primarily appeal to socialisers, philanthropists, players, killers,
griefers, and destroyers. Rules lay down the law, but also can be
disempowered by a scam. They also create the legal fiction we play in.
Assets, badges, points, and ribbons are for relatedness(competition),
challenge, meaning, mastery, and submission. They primarily appeal to
philanthropists, achievers, and players, as they give you the goals to
churn towards.
Voting is for meaning, narrative, fellowship/relatedness, and submission.
It primarily appeals to disruptors and socialisers, but as a truly central
part of nomic, it also appeals to philanthropists. It is the means that the
game ultimately changes, regardless of the proposal system, and relies
generally on coordinated effort.
Punishment is for expression, challenge, narrative, meaning, and
fellowship/relatedness. It primarily appeals to achievers, philanthropists,
and players. It gives an obstacle to overcome, it represents negative
social capital, and gives some more meaning behind what it means to follow
the rules.
Degrees are for expression, challenge, narrative, meaning, mastery,
fellowship/relatedness, submission, and fantasy. They primarily appeal to
philanthropists, free spirits, explorers, and achievers. They are an
academic challenge, but also an entire learning experience unto itself. The
process also lends itself towards some drama between the reviewers ("the
professors") and the submitter ("the student").
Subgames and Tourneys are for challenge, mastery, submission, discovery,
and relatedness(competition). They primarily appeal to achievers, players,
disruptors, and killers. These small competitions allow for shenanigans to
take place, but also for fierce competition.
Contracts and promises are for mastery, discovery, relatedness/fellowship,
expression, and narrative. They primarily appeal to socialisers, players,
killers, and achievers. These allow for complex relationships to form,
which can be exploited or show strong companionship.
3) Moving forward
I don't want this thesis to be a dead end, like some others have been. So
I'm not going to go further than I've already gone: I don't feel the need
to at this point in time. However, I will give a starting point: The
participation of the game is somewhat low, it hovers between 10 and 20
active players. What things are we doing that lower the experience and
cause players to ghost us? What things could we be doing, and aren't, to
improve engagement? Are these missed opportunities, impossibilities of
Agora, or something? What evidence do we have? I don't think it is a matter
of advertising: if we kept every player that came here, or at least more of
the players that come by, we'd have more participation, so it's more about
keeping what we earn than getting more.
a) Unproven or incomplete evidence based suggestions
https://datagame.io/gamification-principles/
This source provides an easy source to reference for some ideas to
implement to improve user engagement. These ideas aren't specific (as there
is some literature around just having "points" or "badges" isn't enough to
motivate properly, it has to be about motiviation.)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321630855X?via%3Dihub
gives a list of game design elements, and how they relate to psychological
need satisfaction (which is another way of saying what reasons exist to
play a game)
https://www.gamified.uk/user-types/gamification-mechanics-elements/
gives a mapping of suggestions to player types [5] they appeal to.
https://thinkgamedesign.com/player-retention-engagement/
There should be different levels of goals (short, mid, long) to keep
players engaged the whole time and yet make progress, and a balance of
difficulty.
https://thinkgamedesign.com/design-videogame/
Game design can be broken down as a top down process, or a bottom up
process. Additionally, its important to ease participants into the gameplay.
}
--
4st
Referee & Deputy (AKA FAKE) Herald
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
