This example explores applying a player typology to categorize player behavior for a hypothetical live, online, social game. You could also apply this method to an upcoming game by studying live games with similar audiences.
For more on typologies, please see: Through Difference Eyes: Using Player Typologies.
Crafting a great experience that resonates with a diverse audience is a constant challenge for designers.
Designer motivation
In this scenario, our hypothetical game designer wants to drive a healthy and positive social environment within their online community. They have a live, online, multiplayer game that features team-based coordination. They want to identify potential problem areas and design features that promote positive interactions.
1. Choosing the area of inquiry
Our designer focuses on social mechanics and in-game interactions. They want to understand how different player goals and motivations might influence these interactions.
2. Brainstorming lenses
Considering the focus on social gameplay, the designer looks at factors like player goals, social preferences, and emotional responses.
Here’s how they might start to explore different player motivations:
- They observe that a lot of interactions start from a rather confrontational standpoint. Examining this, they see a connection between tilted players who carry that frustration forward, as well as those who seem to be doing it on purpose.
- After spending some time studying players who stay quiet (through surveys, interviews, and reaching out to experts in marginalization), they see that there is a general fear around engagement that some players have. There are many potential origins of this fear (systems of oppression, harassment, natural shyness). The designer wants to ensure that the loudest voices aren’t dominating these important players.
- They also notice that some players just seem unaffected by what’s happening around them. These players often act as an anchor, helping less confident players feel more secure engaging with others, and acting as a “buzzkill” for players seeking to disrupt or harass.
Ultimately, they start to arrive at the following:
- Player goals — Some players might prioritize disrupting the experience for others (Antagonizer), while others might seek a positive and collaborative environment (Sunny Solid).
- Social preferences — Some players may be outgoing and easily frustrated (Rager), while others might be more introverted and hesitant to participate (Wallflower).
- Emotional responses — Sunny Solids maintain a positive or neutral demeanor, while Ragers and Wallflowers might exhibit strong emotional reactions (anger and insecurity, respectively).
This example isn’t a fully comprehensive look at the dynamics at play, but it will help designers ask better questions and avoid defaulting to norms or stereotypes. It will also allow them to meaningfully explore the intersection of different player types at key design junctures.
3. Refining the typology
Through further analysis and playtesting, the designer refines the typology. For example, they identify “Followers” as easily influenced by the dominant social group. If the group includes “Ragers,” these “Followers” could adopt negative behaviors.
Ultimately the designer arrives at the following typology:
| Lens | Motivations | Designer notes |
| Antagonizer | Seeks to disrupt Low attachment Hard to motivate | Want to nullify impact or redirect influence |
| Rager | Easily tilts Low self-awareness Quick to blame others | Incentivize better behavior through rewards |
| Wallflower | Worries about others’ opinions Too insecure to fully engage | Consider how to create more welcoming environments, and ways for them to feel more secure when engaging |
| Follower | Reflects the dominant norm “Bad apples” rot them quickly | Can act as a barometer for how the overall play culture is doing |
| Sunny Solid | Unflappable Positive or neutral Anchors community | If we mess this up, we’re in trouble! |
4. Applying the typology
The designer uses this typology to examine different features and potential social interactions:
- Matchmaking system — Can the system be designed to minimize interactions between “Antagonizers” and other players?
- In-game reporting — Is the reporting system clear and easy to use for players encountering “Ragers” or “Antagonizers?”
- Social rewards system — Can the system encourage prosocial behavior and incentivize players like “Sunny Solids” to mentor or guide others?
The typology is flexible. The designer can go deeper via play testing, observation, and community feedback — this may lead to revisions, new categories, or merging of existing categories.
Tools for visualizing and designing for social experiences.
5. Design decisions
Ultimately, our designer used the typology to develop a mentorship feature that helped pair more shy players (Wallflowers) with community members who were known for their warmth, welcoming attitude, and willingness to teach the game (Sunny Solids). They also used it to better understand how to interfere with the different motivations driving Ragers and Antagonizers, and to ensure a robust reporting and penalty system was developed for any issues that did arise.
Collectively, these interventions helped new players have a better first experience, which led to a significant increase in retained players from traditionally marginalized backgrounds, and an overall improvement in both behavior issues and recidivism.
Benefits of this typology
By understanding these player lenses, our designer can proactively design features that promote positive social interactions. They can create a more welcoming environment for all player types, minimizing frustration and encouraging a thriving community.
Note: It’s important to remember that player typologies are not rigid categories. Players may exhibit characteristics from multiple types. This example nonetheless demonstrates how they can be a valuable tool for understanding player behavior and designing a more socially engaging game experience.
Another typology example
Here’s another typology example focused on player-to-player interactions, emphasizing differing motivations across the spectrum of disruptive to supportive behaviors. The goal with this typology is to identify how playstyles may intentionally or unintentionally create conflict within game features or social spaces.
| Lens | Motivations and needs | Risks |
| Devoted Helpers | Enjoys guiding others Gains satisfaction from seeing other players succeed | Excessive hand-holding may undermine learning for some players Others may feel coddled or micromanaged, and may become frustrated |
| Frustrated Strugglers | Desires success, but hits skill walls or faces knowledge gaps | Outward negativity could disrupt others or push frustrated strugglers toward seeking exploits May shine a light on their struggles, causing others to blame them for losses |
| Casual Wanderers | Primarily focused on their own experience, not aiming to assist or hinder | Unintentional disruption due to lack of awareness of how actions impact others Drive frustration in other players |
| Competitive Disruptors | Enjoys dominating or gaining advantage over others, even through unsportsmanlike tactics | Major impact on the overall play experience, creating an unhealthy environment Likely to anger quickly and escalate situations May see their way of playing as superior since the goal is to win |
| Dedicated Trolls | Seeks to provoke strong negative reactions in others for pure amusement | Highest damage to game atmosphere, driving away many player types Typical player motivational interventions will not apply as the goal is to disrupt |
| Friendly Defusers | Promotes harmony by building alignment and resolving conflict quickly. Resilient in the face of hardship | Attempts to generate harmony can read as saccharine or artificial. Resilience may see this player tolerate more inappropriate behavior before reporting it. |
Design questions the above typology might help answer
- Do features exist for “devoted helpers” to gain recognition vs. those exploitatively using help requests?
- Are there mechanisms (not just level-based) for helping players group up that can cater to skill variances while shielding those most easily frustrated?
- How can positive behaviors earn clear social status to set examples?
- What early intervention tools empower the community to moderate without relying only on devs?
Now what?
See the related content below for more!
