Playing for Togetherness
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PLAYING FOR TOGETHERNESS DESIGNING FOR INTERACTION RITUALS THROUGH GAMING Studies in Applied Information Technology, May 2012 ISSN 1652-490X; 12, ISBN 978-91-628-8462-8 PLAYING FOR TOGETHERNESS DESIGNING FOR INTERACTION RITUALS THROUGH GAMING DOCTORAL DISSERTATION BY KARL JONES BERGSTRÖM Department of Applied Information Technology University of Gothenburg SE-412 96 GothenburG TYPESEttING BY LEO NORDWAll PRINTED BY CHALMERS REPROSERVICE, GOTHENBURG, SWEDEN, 2012 ABSTRACT How can design facilitate togetherness through games? Seeing the outcomes of a successful interaction ritual – positive emotional energy and a sense of group solidarity – as the main components of the togetherness of games, this thesis seeks to shed light on how design can improve the use of games as vehicles of interaction. the thesis combines six different articles on games, gaming and gamers; the articles illuminate the different ingredients of the interaction ritual afforded by playing games and covers digital-, board- and tabletop role-playing games. The methods used are artefact analysis, obser- vation and reflexive interviewing. The two articles on games; Exploring Aesthetic Ideals of Gameplay and Exploring Aesthetical Gameplay Design Patterns – Camaraderie in Four Games focus on gameplay aesthetics and present a way of looking at the underly- ing game-mechanical foundations of gameplay aesthetics – the experiential aspect of the meeting between the player and the rules. The former intro- duces the concept of aesthetic gameplay ideals and the latter explores this further through the use of design patterns. The two articles on gaming; Undercurrents – A Computer-based Gameplay Tool to Support Tabletop Role-playing and Framing Storytelling with Games look at tools to support gameplay and provide a concrete example of how su- perfluous work during play can be reduced, leaving more time and energy to the core activity. The former is a description of the produced prototype and its design process; the latter expands upon earlier research and outlines some additional theoretical quandaries when supporting complex storytell- ing activities. The two articles on gamers; The Implicit Rules of Board Games – On the par- ticulars of the lusory agreement and Creativity Rules – How rules impact player creativity in three tabletop role-playing games focus on the rules and the gamer, and delve into the complex social structures surrounding the play of games, as well as how communication on different attitudes when it comes to rules are important to create congruent gaming groups. The former looks at board games and the latter at the practise of tabletop role-playing, both placing emphasis upon the fact that the printed rules of a game artefact only consti- tute part of the gaming agreement. Together with a research summary outlining how gaming can be viewed as an interaction ritual from a design perspective, this work also aims at shortening the divide between gamer and designer, providing both with frameworks for communicating on interaction with games. 5 KEywordS: game research, interaction design, interaction ritual, togetherness, gamer groups. Language: English. Studies in Applied Information Technology, May 2012 ISSN 1652-490X; 12, ISBN 978-91-628-8462-8 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to my main supervisor Staffan Björk, as well as co-supervisors Jonas Linderoth and José Zagal, frequent co-author and inspiration Sus Lundgren and technical developer Staffan rosenberg for the Undercurrents prototype, colleagues Annika Waern, Magnus Eriksson, Anna Valinder, KP Åkesson and Peter Ljungstrand, the TA2 project and all our collaborators, Eva Eriksson for renting me her dad’s flat, all my respondents, the slacker yoofs, all the administrative support, and above all, my white male privilege – here, I’m milking it for all that it is worth! Karl Bergström, Gothenburg 2012 7 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...........................................................................5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................7 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................11 1.1 FOCUS AND SCOPE 12 2. DESIGN RESEARCH AND GAME StUDIES – TWO INTERRELATED FIELDS ...................................17 2.1 DESIGN RESEARCH 17 2.2 RESEARCHING GAMES 20 3. TOGETHERNESS ..........................................................25 3.1 GAMES AS INTERACTION RITUAL 28 4. METHODOLOGIES ......................................................31 4.1 DESIGN ANALYSIS – LOOKING AT THE GAME ARTEFACT 31 4.2 OBSERVATION AND PARTICIPATORY OBSERVATION – BEING WHERE THE GAMEPLAY HAPPENS 31 4.3 INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS – INTO THE MINDS OF THE GAMERS 32 4.4 INCREASING VALIDITY THROUGH SECOND OPINION 33 4.5 THE ROLE OF RESEARCHER EXPERIENCE 34 5. SUMMARY OF PUBLICATIONS .................................37 5.1 GAMES – DESIGNING TOWARDS THE “MOOD” OF A GAME 37 5.2 GAMING – MAXIMISING FOCUS BY MINIMISING “BACKSTAGE WORK” 38 5.3 GAMERS – CLARIFYING THE BARRIER TO OUTSIDERS 40 6. FACILITATING INTERACTION RITUAL ..................43 6.1 “ … SHARE A COMMON MOOD OR EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE” 43 6.2 “PEOPLE FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION UPON A COMMON OBJECT OR ACTIVITY … ” 44 6.3 “THERE ARE BOUNDARIES TO OUTSIDERS SO THAT PARTICIPANTS HAVE A SENSE OF WHO IS TAKING PART AND WHO IS EXCLUDED” 44 7. DISCUSSION .................................................................47 7.1 FUTURE WORk 50 7.2 STUDY/THESIS SHORTCOMINGS 51 8. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................53 9. REFERENCES ................................................................55 1. INTRODUCTION Games are social. If one would ask people why they play games, most will probably answer “because it is fun”. In my experience, a significant number will likely also answer “because it affords me to spend time with other people”. For me, both these statements hold true; in addition to many exciting and memo- rable episodes, games and gaming have always helped me to form strong bonds with people I have come to love and cherish. But it has also given me ample possibilities to interact with people that I might not otherwise know, brought together by the common ground of games and play. Granted, this is not the only benefit of games; but for me and many others it will probably always be the prime reason we gather around the gaming table. Nevertheless, some people like some games better than others. Some groups like some games better than others. Some groups likeeach other better than the members of other groups. Sometimes groups play games that do not suit them, and perhaps this affects how they relate to each other? as I see it, there is a surprising lack of communication between gamers on a meta level concerning the nature of games, groups, and what one wants to get out of playing. People’s preferences differ, and some games are better than others at catering to those preferences. In order to better satisfy people’s wishes, such as having quality time together through games, it is necessary to both being able to create games that support said wishes, and also to com- municate to the players what a particular game entails. But it is also neces- sary that players should be able to communicate with each other in order to form congruent groups. Game designers and researchers have been striving to find commonalities in games that help us understand and design games that better cater to the needs and wants of those that play them, which is also the aim of this thesis. We are interested not only in understanding games, but also how to design them – which makes the research fall under the purview of both design re- search and game studies. this thesis is written as part of the European project Together Anytime, Together Anywhere (ta2-project.eu), which explored, among other things, social activities between groups of people (rather than individuals) when spatially separated. one aspect of the project was the exploration of “to- getherness” – the positive emotions experienced by people doing things together in groups, and how this could be facilitated through the use of 11 communication technology. Games had been identified as one interesting area to be explored, and examining games within the project formed the background to this thesis. defining togetherness turned out to be one of the challenges of the proj- ect, and tied to this, understanding what is required for it to emerge in a group and how designs can support it. throughout the project a number of different approaches were used, effectively “circling in” the concept (see Kort et. al., 2011 for an overview). a recurring focus was on the activities, such as games, that groups of people undertake, either for their own sake or just for the fun of doing something together. Just like all other activities, games also sometimes fail to elicit a feeling of togetherness; sometimes due to the fact that the game was not designed to create this experience (or that the designer tried and failed); sometimes because the participants went into the game with incongruent expectations and/or understandings. The ques- tion is: what can the designer do in order to facilitate togetherness in games and how can we maximise the probability of positive outcomes? the above issue forms the question for this thesis: how can design facili- tate togetherness through games? to answer the question, we will first need a working model of togetherness that allows us to examine game design in how and why it facilitates togetherness in a group. Once such a theory has been found, we