Bartle’s Killers . A misunderstood group of people.

Andrzej gwc13 news Bartle s Killers A misunderstood group of people

Andrzej Marczewski

Gamification Expert, author, consultant and designer. I love to write about it, talk about it and bore people to death with it! If you really want to get to know me, check out the About page.

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. C UC.U says:

    Nice. For me it was always –
    Killers – play for dominating the other, therefore likely to taunt when winning. Like beating someone in a racing game.
    Achievers – play for the notion of accomplishment, therefore likely to get intrinsic values by winning. Like setting a lap-time record in a racing game.

  2. yudashkaiyudashkai says:

    Love your work. I would totally buy your All About Player Types book when it comes out 😉

    Quick question/comment. In my mind, I think about “Killers” as “Competitors” – basically people who are motivated by “beating others,” which are different than achievers who are trying to reach his best (Competitors don’t play puzzles games unless their scores can be compared to others). Do you think that mindset becomes more applicable in a gamification context?

    And yes, people shift player types all the time. Most people don’t become a “killer” until they realize they CAN be! A weakling killer should be called pathetic over a killer, hahaha.

    I want to eventually use your knowledge to refine my Level 3 Octalysis Model. I’m of course aware that Bartle’s is not the best fit for gamification, but in my “demos” I always show Bartle’s 4 because it generally gives me more marketing points “Ah, I know this literature! He’s not making stuff up from his butt!” and also because I’ved covered so many other concepts (8 Core Drives, 4 Experience Phases) that I don’t want to introduce things that are completely new to them, but just kinda course through how Octalysis works through what they already know. I always tell them, “The Key to Level 3 Octalysis is that you can apply the experience “feel” to different types of users, depending on what motivates them. You could just have 2: Marketing and Engineering; or even Male and Females; or Myer’s Brigg’s stuff…all that matters is that you are now customizing the experience for different types based on your design.”

    I eventually want to move into something else other than Bartle’s, especially for my demos, and I see your model as a great potential. There are a few things I’m not sure about though, so would love to collaborate a bit. (It’s much more elegant to say, “We can apply Marczewski’s Player types here” compared to, “There’s a guy named Marczewski who created XYZ awesome stuff, and I made a modification to his player types.” )

    Look forward to seeing you in London!

    • Hah, thanks Yu-Kai.

      A killer is not interested in winning, they are interested in destroying.

      In my system there are two possible answers that would fit. Achiever seeks mastery for intrinsic reasons. This could be solving a puzzle or it could be being better than another person. They are not seeking a reward for this – they just want to be the best. In this case the system acts as a platform for them to achieve these things. Other “players” are just a thing in the system to be overcome.

      All of the Player Users (Exploiters, Self Seekers, Consumers, Networkers) are looking for reward. If competition is what is needed to get that reward, they will compete.

      When you look at bartles achievers, they will kill / compete with other players, but only as a means to gain points. (Killing is only necessary to eliminate rivals or people who get in the way, or to gain vast amounts of points (if points are awarded for killing other players).)

      Oh, found these images that you may like – one way I was visualising the user types originally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ten + twelve =