Designing games for well-being is a complex endeavor. It involves navigating the dynamic interplay between individual player needs, which are shaped by diverse personalities and circumstances, and the intricate dynamics of global communities. Balancing these factors requires a nuanced understanding of how design and community support can foster individual flourishing while nurturing a healthy community environment. This is especially crucial in today’s global market.
This complexity leads to inevitable trade-offs in design, where choices benefit some players but potentially disadvantage others. What resonates with one group may not resonate with another. Even defining “well-being” itself can be subjective, with varying interpretations of what constitutes a fulfilling and healthy life or individual liberties.
This guide offers a comprehensive exploration of well-being design at three interconnected scales: individual, group, and community. We’ll delve into the unique needs and challenges at each level, highlighting trade-offs and offering design recommendations. Each section features curated techniques and links to resources for further exploration, empowering you to create games that foster holistic well-being.
Three lenses: Community, groups, and individuals
Effective design for well-being goes beyond individual preferences by acknowledging the dynamic interplay between personal needs, group dynamics, and community values. Designers must approach this complexity with care, recognizing that trade-offs may be necessary to optimize well-being for all involved. By embracing a holistic perspective and carefully evaluating competing priorities, designers can create solutions that foster a sense of individual agency while contributing to the collective good.
Accomplishing this requires an understanding of the complex factors that shape well-being and a commitment to finding creative solutions that benefit individuals and groups within their social context.
Level 1: The individual
When games are designed with well-being in mind, they can empower individuals to thrive not just within the context of the game itself, but also in their broader lives. This ripple effect can create a positive feedback loop, ultimately contributing to the well-being of groups and communities.
Similarly, when players experience diminished well-being, it can radiate outward to groups and the broader community, manifesting as negative emotions, reduced social support, antagonistic behaviors, and negative social modeling.
Balancing individual needs
- Psychological needs — Foster a sense of belonging, achievement, and self-expression through social features, skill progression, customization options, and opportunities for meaningful interaction. Prioritize psychological safety by combating harassment and promoting inclusive environments.
- Self-actualization — Enable players to reach their full potential and master skills through challenging yet achievable goals, diverse content, and opportunities for personal growth.
- In-game needs — Satisfy the need for food, shelter, safety, agency, and other needs within the game world to create a sense of security and stability.
Navigating design trade-offs
- Challenge vs. frustration — What motivates one player may overwhelm another — not everyone arrives to a game wanting (or is equipped for) the same challenges. Likewise, some players want or need more guidance, while others thrive on open-ended discovery and exploration.
What to do:- In general, balance difficulty levels to engage without overwhelming (while acknowledging there are exceptions to this, such as in the “mascore” genre).
- Offer adjustable or dynamic difficulty, and / or optional assistance to cater to diverse skill levels and preferences.
- Provide clear onboarding and tutorials for new players, while allowing experienced players to skip or customize their learning experience.
- Consider multiple paths to progress or alternative solutions to problems.
Flexible game design allows for diverse play styles and encourages connections across skill gaps, boosting engagement.
- Competition vs. cooperation — Players may bring different mindsets with respect to the level of expected competition vs. cooperation in a game.
What to do:- Offer a variety of game modes or activities that cater to both competitive and cooperative playstyles.
- Make it clear what is expected of players to avoid misalignment.
- Allow players to choose their preferred level of interaction and adjust it throughout the game.
RPM is a design method for generating social satisfaction in multiplayer games.
- Social interaction vs. personal space — Multiplayer games thrive on social connection, but not all players crave constant interaction. These needs can also change over time.
What to do:- Design spaces for both social interaction and quiet reflection.
- Allow players to control their level of social engagement, such as opting in or out of group activities or adjusting communication settings to suit their needs.
- Be careful when requiring social engagement to fully experience your game. This will limit your audience and may act as friction for players when they don’t feel like socializing.
- Short-term vs. long-term gratification — A desire for instant gratification can lead to addictive patterns and short-term thinking. In a group setting, this may conflict with the wants of players who may be willing to invest in longer-term achievements.
What to do:- Consider reward systems that offer both early feedback and reinforcement as well as delayed gratification. They can offer a deeper sense of accomplishment to help sustain motivation.
- Create ways for players to self-organize, especially for longer time investments that may not be feasible for all players (such as exposing the commitment if embarking on a multi-hour raid).
Beyond “Co-Op”: A Spectrum of Cooperation
A designer’s guide to the landscape of cooperative games.
- Content moderation vs. freedom of expression — A sense of safety is essential for fostering individual well-being and creative expression in online communities. When players feel unsafe, they hesitate to share ideas and engage fully.
What to do:- Prioritize creating a secure environment where players feel empowered to express themselves without fear.
- Utilize clear community guidelines, transparent moderation practices, and empower players to report issues.
- Ensure that you have a clear set of values and standards established, and design your moderation practices to be consistent with them. That will make it easier to strike a balance between protecting players from harmful content and allowing creative self-expression.
The values you embed in your creations significantly impact player engagement, community, and the overall legacy of your game.
- Engagement vs. excessive playtime — While engaging gameplay is desirable for players and developers, excessive playtime can negatively impact players’ lives.
What to do:- Design features that encourage healthy gameplay habits, such as session timers, activity summaries, or reminders to take breaks.
- Avoid exploiting addictive design patterns that promote excessive playtime at the expense of players’ well-being.
Well-being is a key to helping our communities thrive and taking care of ourselves while doing so.
- Monetization vs. well-being — While monetization can be an important aspect of a game’s financial viability, it should not come at the expense of player well-being.
What to do:- Prioritize player well-being over aggressive monetization strategies.
- Offer fair and transparent pricing, avoid predatory practices like loot boxes or pay-to-win mechanics, and ensure that all essential content and features can be accessed without spending additional money.
- Consider spending caps to protect those who are vulnerable to overspending.
Here some additional strategies that go into more detail:
By understanding how social contagion works, developers can take active steps to foster positive communities and minimize harmful trends.
SDT offers a powerful way to examine player motivations and craft online worlds that foster cooperation, satisfaction, and a thriving player base.
Level 2: The group
Designing group- or team-based games presents a unique challenge: balancing individual player desires with the collective needs of the group. This complexity is further amplified by the influence of the broader gaming community as well as the diverse social dynamics that emerge within groups, whether they consist of friends, strangers, or a mix of both.
Balancing group needs
- Cohesion — A strong sense of belonging and shared purpose is the foundation of a successful group.
- Effective communication — Open and transparent communication is essential for resolving conflicts, making decisions, and coordinating strategies.
- Meaningful roles — Every group member should feel valued and understand their contribution to the team.
Navigating design trade-offs
- Group cohesion vs. individual expression — Balancing the desire for group unity with individual expression is a constant challenge.
What to do:- Offer customizable group identities and individual avatars, or other means for personal expression, within the group structure.
- Design roles that cater to diverse playstyles and encourage players to bring their unique strengths to the team.
Introduction to many of the not-so-obvious concepts woven into the RPM design method.
- Team success vs. individual growth — Focusing solely on team success can stifle individual growth and lead to feelings of inadequacy, while focusing solely on individuals can undermine team cohesion.
What to do:- Implement systems that track and reward both individual and group accomplishments.
- Provide personalized feedback and progression paths for each player, allowing them to grow and feel valued for their contributions.
- Offer opportunities for mentorship or skill-sharing within the group to foster a supportive learning environment.
- Skill imbalances — Groups often form with diverse skill levels, which can lead to imbalanced gameplay and frustration. While prioritizing overall group performance might seem logical, it can inadvertently create negative experiences for those who feel outmatched or underutilized.
What to do:- Offer a spectrum of meaningful ways to contribute that require different types and levels of skill.
- If appropriate, de-prioritize the role of skill in favor of other ways to contribute.
- Offer difficulty scaling options to adjust challenges based on the group’s overall proficiency.
- Provide tutorials and practice modes for less experienced players to improve.
- Self-expression vs. social acceptance — Players may feel pressure to conform to group norms to gain acceptance, even if it means suppressing their true selves. This can be especially detrimental to players with already marginalized identities.
What to do:- Provide safe spaces for players to express themselves authentically, such as private chat channels or creative outlets within the game.
- Design systems for positive feedback and prosocial reciprocal behaviors. Implement moderation tools to prevent harassment or exclusion.
- Competition vs. cooperation — Introducing competition (sometimes unintentionally) can undermine a group’s tendency to cooperate. While competition can be motivating, overemphasizing it can undermine group cooperation.
What to do:- Design activities that require collaboration and teamwork for success.
- Offer rewards for both individual and group achievements to encourage a balanced approach.
- Implement systems that mitigate the impact of overly competitive players on the overall group experience.
- Group dynamics — Multiplayer games must strike a balance between fostering group cohesion and maintaining high performance standards. Unhealthy dynamics or social loafing can undermine both individual and collective experiences.
What to do:- Implement systems that visibly recognize individual effort and achievements within the group, reinforcing the value of each player’s contribution.
- Provide in-game channels or tools for group members to easily communicate, share feedback, and address concerns constructively.
- Equip group leaders with tools to manage roles, assign tasks, and facilitate decision-making, ensuring a sense of shared responsibility and accountability.
Understanding group dynamics can be an important component to designing your game in a way that allows communities to thrive.
- Strangers and premades in team games — Team-based games often match strangers with pre-formed groups of friends (premades). These groups can clash due to differing playstyles, communication norms, and expectations, and the familiarity among friends can leave solo players feeling excluded.
What to do:- Implement robust systems that match players based on relevant compatibility factors rather than solely grouping premades together.
- Provide features specifically designed to facilitate communication, coordination, and connection between strangers.
- Encourage diverse playstyles and allow for flexible roles within the game, accommodating both coordinated premades and individual contributions from strangers.
- Offer separate queues for players who prefer to play alone or with a single friend, reducing the frequency of facing premades.
Here some additional strategies that go into more detail:
Delve into design techniques that can help players overcome skepticism and build connections.
Trust-building is a gradual process, but these tips can help players overcome their natural skepticism about those they don’t know.
Cooperative games hold the potential for deeply satisfying social and collaborative experiences.
Level 3: The community
At the community level, game designers face the complex task of understanding how design choices for individuals and groups ripple outward, impacting the overall well-being of the community. The prevailing values, norms, and subcultures within the community can significantly shape individual behavior and group dynamics, creating a unique landscape that designers must navigate.
Additionally, the passionate nature of gaming fandom can lead to heightened expectations, social pressures, and negative behaviors such as harassment, all of which pose distinct challenges for individual and group well-being. Balancing community needs with the desires of individuals and groups requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the diverse values, interests, and potential vulnerabilities within the community.
Balancing community needs
- Safety and security – A safe environment is the foundation upon which a community thrives. Players need to feel protected from harassment, hate speech, violence, and exploitation, and that discriminatory behavior is actively discouraged.
- A strong sense of community and connection – A sense of belonging, acceptance, shared values, and social justice are essential for a cohesive community. This includes spaces for players to connect with each other.
- Essential services – A thriving community needs more than just a game to play. It requires a range of services to support social interaction, information sharing, conflict resolution, as well as growth and development (ideally).
Navigating design trade offs
- Moderation and governance – Balancing the need for order with player autonomy can be challenging.
What to do:- Strive for transparency in moderation practices and decision-making processes.
- Involve the community in shaping guidelines and policies.
- Offer avenues for appeal and feedback.
- Conflicting values and norms – Diverse communities inevitably bring together individuals with different backgrounds and beliefs, which can lead to disagreements and conflict.
What to do:- Foster open dialogue and encourage respectful communication between different groups.
- Promote shared values like inclusivity and respect.
- Provide resources for conflict resolution and mediation.
The values you embed in your creations significantly impact player engagement, community, and the overall legacy of your game.
- Scalability – As a community grows, maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere becomes increasingly difficult.
What to do:- Invest in scalable infrastructure and moderation tools to handle increased player numbers.
- Empower community members to self-organize and create their own sub-communities.
- Diverse interests – Catering to a wide range of player interests is crucial for keeping a community engaged.
What to do:- Offer diverse content, activities, and events that appeal to different playstyles and preferences.
- Encourage player-created content and provide tools for players to customize their experience.
- In-group vs. out-group dynamics – A strong sense of group identity can lead to the formation of in-groups and out-groups within a larger community. This can foster feelings of exclusivity, competition, and even prejudice towards those outside the group, hindering overall community integration.
What to do:- Design features that encourage cross-group interaction and collaboration.
- Highlight positive examples of cooperation and celebrate achievements that benefit the entire community.
- Unequal power dynamics – Power imbalances between different groups can create barriers to integration. Minority groups may feel excluded or overlooked in community decision-making processes, leading to resentment and further division.
What to do:- Ensure that all voices are heard and valued in community discussions and decision-making processes.
- Empower marginalized groups through representation and inclusive design practices.
Beyond “Co-Op”: A Spectrum of Cooperation
A designer’s guide to the landscape of cooperative games.
Now What?
If you’d like to dig deeper into the foundations of these topics, here’s a great place to start!
The quality of the interaction between players is key to the experience we are trying to build.
Design heuristics to help avoid or mitigate design-driven conflicts.
Learn how communication design can empower seamless interaction, reduce friction, and cultivate greater harmony.
References
- Commission on Social Determinants of Health. (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health – Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization.
- Dunbar R. & Sosis, R. (2018, January). Optimising human community sizes. Evolution and Human Behavior.
- Gastil, J. (2009). The Group in Society.
- Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D., & Sacerdote, B. (2002). An economic approach to social capital. The Economic Journal.
- Hern, A. (2023). Techscape: Warnings of a ‘splinternet’ were greatly exaggerated – until now. The Guardian.
- Jacobs, C. (2011). Measuring success in communities: Understanding the community capitals framework.
- Kaplan, G. A., Shema, S. J., & Leite, C. M. (2008). Socioeconomic determinants of psychological well-being: The role of income, income change, and income sources during the course of 29 years.
- Koster, R. (2003). Small worlds: Competitive and cooperative structures in online worlds. Ralph Koster’s Website.
- Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance.
- Manca, A. R. (2014). Social cohesion. In Michalos, A. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research.
- McLeod, S. (2024). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology.
- Sandstrom G. & Dunn, E. (2014). Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties.
- Williams, D. (2007). The impact of time online: Social capital and cyberbalkanization.
- World Health Organization. (n.d.). Social determinants of health.
- https://www.preventioninstitute.org/
