Chalmers Publication Library Neither playing nor gaming: Pottering in games This document has been downloaded from Chalmers Publication Library (CPL). It is the author´s version of a work that was accepted for publication in: 2012 Foundation of Digital Games Conference, FDG 2012, Raleigh, 29 May-1 June 2012 Citation for the published paper: Lundgren, S. ; Björk, S. (2012) "Neither playing nor gaming: Pottering in games". 2012 Foundation of Digital Games Conference, FDG 2012, Raleigh, 29 May-1 June 2012 pp. 113- 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282363 Downloaded from: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/163522 Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source. Please note that access to the published version might require a subscription. Chalmers Publication Library (CPL) offers the possibility of retrieving research publications produced at Chalmers University of Technology. It covers all types of publications: articles, dissertations, licentiate theses, masters theses, conference papers, reports etc. Since 2006 it is the official tool for Chalmers official publication statistics. To ensure that Chalmers research results are disseminated as widely as possible, an Open Access Policy has been adopted. The CPL service is administrated and maintained by Chalmers Library. (article starts on next page) Neither Playing nor Gaming: Pottering in Games Sus Lundgren Staffan Björk Department of Applied IT Department of Applied IT Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg University 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden +46 31 772 10 42 +46 31 772 1039 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT In this paper, we explore the idea of games as artifacts able to Games can support many types of activities. This paper explores support many different activities by looking at one in specific: one of these, pottering, the placid but yet focused activity of pottering [34]. This activity is a relaxed way of performing some arranging and rearranging things, taking care of them, “sorting task for its own sake, but it differs from playing most games in them out”. Five games which support pottering are analyzed using that there is no focus upon winning or completing the game. How gameplay design patterns to show how game mechanics can give this activity can arise from game mechanics is described through rise to the activity. As a result, six patterns especially linked to use of gameplay design patterns [2]. After describing the pottering are presented in greater detail. Moreover, the idea of characteristics of pottering and patterns respectively, we present viewing games as artifacts that can support several, sometimes five pottering intense-games, and the most important gameplay overlapping, activities, is being explored and discussed. design patterns related to them. Based on this material, a discussion on the relation between pottering and other activities is Categories and Subject Descriptors presented. The paper ends with further discussion on how the K.8.0 [General]: Games approach of games as supporting multiple activities can be fruitful for the game research field as a whole. General Terms Design 2. BACKGROUND Keywords Various game researchers have previously applied several Pottering, Gameplay Design Patterns, Gameplay Design, Design different approaches to understanding the differences in what players prefer to do while playing. Many of these approaches introduce concepts and categorizations valuable for understanding 1. INTRODUCTION pottering in games, and these are introduced here to provide a Games are enjoyed for many reasons: some players like vocabulary for the continued exploration: competition or the tempting challenge in analyzing and “beating” a game system, while others enjoy the social aspects of a game. Bartle [6] identifies four player types in text-based multiplayer Some enjoy seeing their own devious plans successfully realized, online games, which was later expanded to eight categories: yet others play for the thrill of randomness. Some play games to Friend, Griefer, Hacker, Networker, Opportunist, Planner, 1 fill gaps of time, e.g. during lunch or on a break, others set Politician, and Scientist [5] . evenings aside for gaming. For others, the most important part of Focusing on different kinds of experiences rather than player the game is not the game per se, but the activities that prelude it; categories, Hunicke et al. [19] instead introduce eight types of learning rules or designing, assembling or decorating game parts. fun while describing the Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA) However, hardly any game can satisfy all of these aspects and this model: Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, explains why different players prefer different types of games, or Discovery, Expression, and Submission. choose different types of games depending of context. In short, Addressing game development professionals, Lazzaro (2010) the characteristics of the game define which activities it supports. outlined more than ten different emotions (e.g. Amici, This – the multitude of activities – may be one reason for the Schadenfreude, and Fiero) divided into four categories of fun: many definitions of games that have been provided over the years, Hard, Easy, Serious and People. see e.g. Abt [1], Callois [9], Crawford [11], Huizinga [20], Juul Based on empirical data collected from over 5000 gamers in [21], Salen et al. [32], and Suits [33] . It is indeed notable that graphical versions of massively multiplayer online games over 3 while some of these define a game as an artifact many actually years, Yee [36] identified a five factor model of user motivations define the activity of playing or gaming instead. While this shows through exploratory factor analysis: Achievement, Relationship, the importance of the activities provided by game artifacts, the Immersion, Escapism and Manipulation. use of the word “game” will in this paper refer to a game in itself, rather than any activity related to playing it. Several similarities can be noticed in these examples of research although they looked at different sets of games and presented Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for ontologically different categories. Not too surprising, the personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are importance of social interaction can be found in all (the fun of not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies Fellowship, the People fun category, the Relationship and bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. FDG '12, May 29-June 1, 2012 Raleigh, NC, USA. 1 The apparent inconsistency of years in the references is due to Copyright (c) 2012 ACM 978-1-4503-1333-9/12/05... $10.00. the 2006 paper being based on an earlier paper. Manipulation factor, and the player types Friend, Griefer, one emotional state but rather to move between them – somewhat Networker, and Politician). Likewise, the overcoming of like the work of both Hunicke and Lazzaro point to through their challenges is present (the Hard fun category, the Achievement and ranges of different types of fun. Relationship factors, the player types Hacker, Politician, and In addition, parallels can be found between pottering and the Scientist, and the funs of Challenge and even Submission). concept of flow. Dedicated Pottering-Time and lack of Not looking at players or types of fun but rather at gameplay as an Accountability give the same freedom in a pottering activity as aesthetic experience, Lundgren et al. [26] introduced the concept flow, enabling people to having personal control of the activity of gameplay ideals to describe how games as artifacts can convey and having the possibility to concentrate on the task at hand. The different types of intended gameplay and described seven specific Satisfaction of pottering in "easy and mindless activities" is ideals: Light Games, Pottering, Emergence, Meditation, Player similar to the intrinsic reward and distorted sense of time often Adaptability, Reenactment, Camaraderie, and Meta-game. Seen accompanying flow. as a form of counterpart to the categories of Bartle and Yee, these can be combined to express succinctly what is required for 2.2 Gameplay Design Patterns finding a suitable game for a player: matching their player type, The five aspects of pottering are actually more related to the or motivation for playing, with games that have compatible experiences and framings of the pottering activity than the actual gameplay ideals. concrete actions. Thus, if design choices related to gameplay can be traced to the experiences of pottering, it means that pottering Starting from another viewpoint, the generic concept of Flow [12] can be supported by games through their gameplay rather than describes one of the reasons – perhaps the most important one – other features. To do this in detail, a way of describing design why playing games are enjoyable. At the same time, it fails to choices regarding gameplay is needed. While several frameworks describe what separates games from other artifacts that also or models exist for this (e.g. [37]), gameplay design patterns [2] provide flow, something which would require a more detailed had already been used to explore the experience of camaraderie description of the activities supported by games. Rather than [7] and therefore seems a feasible candidate. Gameplay design trying to understand games by describing all these as one coherent patterns are re-occurring design features in games and described activity (“playing”), which has been attempted before and easily both through how they affect gameplay (and indirectly other bogs down in disputes over what should or should not be included aspects of the game) and through what options and requirements or excluded, we believe that a more constructive way to they have to exist.