It’s a simple 10-question quiz and at the end of it you will be given one or more player types and a nice little image like this
my ludic player type
Just as a reminder, the player types are
Adventurer: These individuals embody curiosity and a thirst for discovery. They find excitement in pushing boundaries and uncovering what lies beyond. Their fearless exploration enriches their lives with new experiences and perspectives.
Creator: Creators thrive on imagination and the act of making. Whether it’s building worlds, crafting stories, or expressing themselves through art, they find fulfillment in bringing new creations to life. Their creativity fuels the imaginations of others and inspires awe and wonder.
Actor: Actors breathe life into the creations of others, infusing them with personality and depth. Through role-play and imaginative storytelling, they immerse themselves in new worlds and experiences, enriching the play for themselves and those around them.
Learner: Learners approach play as a means of growth and self-improvement. They eagerly seek out new challenges and opportunities to expand their skills and knowledge. Every game or activity becomes a chance to learn and develop, making them constantly evolve and adapt.
Anarchist: Anarchists disrupt the status quo and challenge conventional norms. While their chaotic tendencies may seem unpredictable, they bring a sense of spontaneity and unpredictability to the play. Though they may sometimes upset the balance, they also inject a sense of excitement and novelty into the experience.
Well, I just realised that I may have missed the 10-year anniversary of the HEXAD!! (Try the new 12 question quiz!!)
I think I actually created the HEXAD in 2013 – but it is a bit fluffy as it went through so many iterations before the HEXAD was finalised! Below you can see some of the evolution. There was much more than this of course.
The First VersionUser Types Theory8 User TypesUser Type Fun TheoryToo Many?The HEAXD v1The HEXAD and bit MoreGetting the Colours RightNailed It!
One of the things building this taught me was that you are not always right! I too many missteps and had a lot of help. Richard Bartle, Amy Jo Kim and Nicole Lazaro all gave me loads and loads of help as I developed the types.
Since then, they have taken on a life of their own, thanks in no small part to Gustavo Tondello and Lennart Nacke whose work on validation of my User Types quiz skyrocketed the popularity of the HEXAD.
Today the HEXAD has been used in hundreds of projects and research papers, something I never ever dreamed of and something that makes me incredibly proud.
18,000 results!?
So – happy 10th birthday (ish) to the User Types HEXAD and here is to the next 10 years!
In my new world, I focus on optimisation a lot in the realms of e-commerce performance. Testing, personalisation etc. It has taken a very long time for me to realise that my new world is almost identical to my old world of gamification. At their most basic, they both rely on 4 key pillars to succeed as they are both focused on behavioural change.
I wanted to just explore those briefly here with you, as much as a way of consolidating the thought process as much as anything else!!
The four pillars are.
What do you want to change?
Why do you want to change it?
How are you going to change it?
How are you going to measure the success of the change?
What do you want to change?
In gamification as in optimisation, this is always the starting point. What are you going to change? When considering using gamification, the answer might be “I want to get fit”. In optimisation, it may be “I want to make it easier to add products to cart”.
Whatever the change is, you need to be able to define it as simply as possible and as concisely.
Why do you want to change it?
This is more important than anything else. If you don’t understand why you want to change something, you can never hope to actually change it. Usually, you would want some sort of data to support the What.
In the case of fitness, it could be “I am overweight for my age and height and feel unhealthy.” In optimisation, it might be “UX research has shown that people get frustrated needing to go to the product detail page to add common products to their cart.”
How are you going to change it?
This is where you get to look at the problem from as close as possible. Just saying “I want to get fit” is a pretty big challenge. You want to set some manageable goals and have multiple how steps in reality. In this instance, it might be
Week 1: Reduce sugar intake and do 10 press-ups and 10 sit-ups a day
Week 2: Reduce fat intake, do 10 press-ups, 10 sit-ups and walk for half an hour a day
Week 3: Reduce alcohol intake, do 20 press-ups, 20 sit-ups and walk for an hour a day
And so on. You would then include some kind of gamification to make some of this more enjoyable and manageable such as Zombies, Run!
With our e-commerce challenge, we may look at it and say “Adding an add-to-cart button on each product on a product listing page will reduce the need to go to the product details page thus reducing customer frustration”.
In both instances, you are choosing a change or changes that are easy to achieve and help chip away at the initial challenge you have discovered in the Why part of this process.
How are you going to measure the success of the change?
None of this is of any benefit if you are unable to define and measure the success of the change you are making, as well as consider what other effects this change might have.
With the fitness challenge, you could look to measure your weight at the end of each week or month. If your weight is decreasing, then your changes might be working. However, you may also want to check “guard rail” metrics. Check your blood sugar for instance. If your weight is dropping, but your blood sugar is dangerously low – then you need to rethink the changes you are making.
In the e-commerce space, you could measure the number of items being added to the bag, to prove that making it easier to add content to the bag increases something. However, if not letting people get to the product details pages means they are buying lower-value items or even returning more items because they don’t see important info – then the change is actually doing more harm than good.
A great example a friend of mine uses is “I can make your customers buy tonnes more products by dropping the price of everything to £1, but will that change really be of benefit to you and how would you know if you measure nothing other than the purchase rates?”
So always ensure you can define and measure success with as many metrics as you need to mitigate unintended consequences wherever possible!!
Putting it together
In our gamification example, we would have a hypothesis that looks a bit like this.
I want to get fit because I am overweight.
I am going to do this by changing a number of existing dietary habits and introducing more exercise with the aid of Zombies, Run! I will know I have succeeded by checking my weight and also ensuring that my general health is maintained or improved.
In the optimisation version, we would say.
I want to make it easier to add products to basket because customers get frustrated having to go to the product details page every time.
I will try doing this by putting an add-to-basket button on each product on the product listing page. I will know this is working because average items in the basket will increase, frustration metrics will decrease and there will be no adverse effects on average order value or overall revenue.
Before you go!!
It is really, really, really important to not view this as linear! You will need to iterate on the hypothesis if it starts to show signs of failure! If it is succeeding, you may also want to iterate – add new ideas and get even bolder with the “What you want to change” part of the hypothesis as more data becomes available.
4 pillars of change
Also, never underestimate the knowledge you have – it took me far too long to tie the Gamification to the Optimisation side of my mind!
One of the key issues facing gamification as it moves defiantly into its mid-teens is a lack of consistency and interoperability of the language used to describe it. The first and most obvious example of this is the lack of anything resembling an agreement on a definition of gamification. Wikipedia seems to change pretty regularly, and almost every gamification expert out there has their own version. Very few like the Wikipedia version either; “The use of game elements in non-game contexts” being the most popular. Don’t get me wrong; I love Sebastian Deterding, and the definition fits the original meaning of gamification, but things moved on a little, or at least I hope they did.
Defining Gamification and Its Challenges
After that, there is the issue of how we define certain aspects of gamification. Game Mechanics, for instance. This is a catch-all term in gamification that often just means “anything that looks a bit like it could have been in a game at some point – or went near a game by accident”. However, in game design, the definition of a game mechanic is pretty much set in stone. In simple terms, it is a set of rules that define the outcome of an input of some description. In Uno, you can see it in the very basic rule of “You have to put the same number or colour down on the card before”. The input is the choice of card, the rule is “it has to be the same color or number,” and the outcome is either you pick up another card because you can’t meet the rules set (another mechanic) or you place a suitable card down and play continues. If you alter a mechanic, you can alter the whole game. Imagine that the rule in UNO is that you can play the card face up or face down – if it is face down, you tell the other players what the card is, and they choose to believe you or call your bluff. Suddenly there is a whole new set of strategies, just by changing one mechanic.
Game Mechanics and Their Impact
UNO is a great example of this generally. Every type of deck has at least one different mechanic. We have a few. UNO Flip is our favourite. Here you have different face cards on both sides of the deck – one traditional, one a bit more evil. If you get the right action card, flip the deck and play the other side for a bit. It changes the whole dynamic of the game (I’ll get to dynamics in a moment). Another great deck is the Toy Story 4 deck, with the Duke Kaboom card. When you play this, you can tell two players to shuffle their cards together and re-dealt them evenly to each other. This adds a unique twist that allows you to alter the entire game balance, not just for the person next to you in the round but for anyone playing. Again, it is a single new mechanic that changes several strategies and dynamics of play.
Understanding Game Dynamics
Dynamics is another word that in gamification is often used interchangeably with game mechanics. However, game dynamics are the outcomes of game mechanics and how players interact with them. Take my example of UNO flip. With the introduction of the flip card, there is a new layer to the strategy and flow of play. For instance, as you can see the unflipped side of the deck, you have to try and remember the cards, trying to keep in mind how evil their hand is before you commit to flipping the deck and opening yourself up to a potential world of hurt.
Evaluating Game Mechanics: A Simple Approach
A simple way to think about game mechanics is to ask, “If I alter this, does it change the game in some way?” If it doesn’t, it is very likely the mechanic has no place in the game in the first place – or it isn’t a mechanic. Points systems are not mechanics – they are feedback. If you take away points in most games, the game is still fun to play. You can enjoy Tetris just fine without ever looking at the score! However, remove a mechanic like being able to rotate the blocks, and suddenly the gameplay has changed significantly. And so it is with gamification, or at least it should be. If you take away the points and feedback – does the gamification still add what you wanted to the experience? If it doesn’t, you need to rethink it!
A few lessons there and a bit of a ramble – but you get the idea!!!
A long time ago, I created a little framework for improving teamwork in organisations. I had forgotten about it until a recent conversation! So here it is, the TRAC to Teamwork
Trust: Develop a culture of transparency and honest communication.
Role Clarity: Ensure all team members understand their roles clearly and where the boundaries are between their roles and the roles of others.
Autonomy: Empower everyone to work independently within their roles and ensure they feel confident enough in their team to collaborate where needed.
Competence: Ensure all team members have the correct skills to achieve their goals and perform their roles successfully. Offer additional development where needed.
Each of these pillars is essential for teams to work well together, with each being as important as the last. Without Trust, no one will share information and there can be no autonomy.
Without Role Clarity, people either step on each other’s toes or they begin to create silos based on what they think they should be doing – then refuse to do anything beyond that!
Without Autonomy, people feel they are being micromanaged and undervalued / untrusted.
Without Competence, people are unable to be autonomous as others will not trust them to work effectively without extra support.
Essentially, everyone needs to know what their job is, know how to do it, be free to work in the best way for them and the teams they work with and be trusted and trusting within their team!
