Analyse why games work, build and playtest paper prototypes, balance systems and levels, and communicate a design with a one-page GDD and a pitch.

Game Design Fundamentals

## Why it matters

Everyone can say whether they liked a game. A designer has to say **why**, and then change the right thing. "The combat feels boring" is not something you can fix directly; "enemies always attack one at a time, so players never have to choose a target" is. A shared framework turns vague feelings into causes you can work on.

The most widely taught framework is **MDA**, from a 2004 paper by Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert Zubek. It splits a game into three layers.

## The three layers

| Layer | What it is | Who controls it | Example (chess) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Mechanics** | the rules, data and actions: what you can do and what happens | the designer, directly | pieces move in fixed patterns; capture by landing on a piece |
| **Dynamics** | the behaviour that emerges when players use the mechanics over time | nobody directly; it emerges | controlling the centre, forks, trading pieces, endgame technique |
| **Aesthetics** | the emotional responses players have | nobody directly; it is felt | challenge, tension, the satisfaction of a plan coming together |

The key insight is the **direction** of each view:

- The **designer** builds mechanics, hoping they create certain dynamics, which create the aesthetics they want.
- The **player** experiences the aesthetics first, notices some dynamics, and may never think about the mechanics at all.

So you design from the aesthetic you want back down to the mechanics that might produce it, then test whether it actually happens.

## Naming aesthetics precisely

"Fun" is too vague to design for. The MDA paper lists eight kinds of fun, which give you better words:

- **Sensation**: the game as sense-pleasure (sound, visuals, game feel)
- **Fantasy**: make-believe, being someone else
- **Narrative**: the game as drama
- **Challenge**: an obstacle course to master
- **Fellowship**: a social framework, playing together
- **Discovery**: uncharted territory to explore
- **Expression**: self-discovery and creativity
- **Submission**: a relaxing pastime

Most games target two or three of these. A cosy farming game leans on submission, expression and fantasy; a competitive fighting game leans on challenge and fellowship.

## Worked example: why does tag work?

Analyse playground tag with MDA.

- **Mechanics:** one player is "it"; touching another player makes them "it"; there is a play area.
- **Dynamics:** players keep their distance from "it", taunt from just out of reach, and team up loosely to distract "it". "It" picks the slowest or nearest target and tries to corner people.
- **Aesthetics:** challenge (escaping), fellowship (laughing together), sensation (running).

Now change one mechanic: **"it" must hop on one foot.** The dynamics shift (players get bolder, taunting increases) and the aesthetics shift too (less tension, more comedy). One small rule changed the whole experience. That is the MDA loop in action.

## Worked example: a design problem

A team's dungeon game is meant to feel **tense** (challenge), but playtesters say it feels like a chore. Work backwards:

1. **Aesthetic missing:** tension.
2. **Dynamic observed:** players fully clear every room, heal to full and move on. There is never a risky decision.
3. **Mechanic causing it:** healing potions are plentiful and resting is free.
4. **Change to try:** make resting cost a resource or advance a danger timer.

The fix is in the mechanics, but you found it by starting from the aesthetic.

## Common mistakes

- **Describing only mechanics.** A feature list is not a design. Always ask what dynamic each rule creates and what players feel as a result.
- **Assuming dynamics.** You cannot be sure what players will do until you watch them. MDA is a way to form hypotheses that playtests confirm or reject.
- **Targeting every aesthetic.** A game that tries to be relaxing, punishing and story-heavy at once usually does none of them well. Choose.
- **Treating MDA as the only lens.** It is a starting vocabulary. Later frameworks add story, technology and context, but the core idea of rules -> behaviour -> feeling stays useful.

## Quick recap

- Mechanics are rules you write, dynamics are behaviour that emerges, aesthetics are feelings players have.
- Designers work from aesthetics back to mechanics; players experience them the other way round.
- Name aesthetics precisely (challenge, discovery, fellowship...) instead of "fun".
- Small mechanical changes can change dynamics and aesthetics completely, so test every change.


Use the MDA framework to explain how a game's rules turn into the experience players feel.

Mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics

How To Think Like A Game Designer

MDA - Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics. Core elements of game design.

Write the game's name and, in one sentence, what the player does most often from minute to minute.

Draw the core loop as 3-5 boxes connected by arrows in a circle, using verbs (for example: explore -> fight -> loot -> upgrade -> explore).

Under each arrow, write what the player gets or spends at that step (time, health, coins, items, information).

Next to the loop, list one short-term goal (seconds to minutes), one medium-term goal (a session) and one long-term goal (days or weeks).

Mark the moment in the loop where a player is most likely to quit. Write why (boredom, frustration, nothing new to aim for).

Propose one change to the loop or a goal that would keep a player going past that moment. Keep it to a single rule.

Explain your map to a friend in under a minute and ask whether it matches how they play.

## Why it matters

Players spend most of their time repeating a small set of actions. If that repetition is satisfying, they will forgive a lot; if it is not, no amount of story or art will save the game. Designers call that repeated cycle the **core loop**, and mapping it is one of the first things you do when analysing or planning a game.

## The core idea

A **core loop** is the shortest cycle of actions a player repeats, where the result of one cycle feeds the next. It is usually written as verbs:

```text
explore -> fight -> collect loot -> upgrade gear -> explore (harder area)
```

A good loop has three qualities:

1. **Clear action:** the player knows what to do next.
2. **Feedback:** each step gives a visible result (a number goes up, a door opens, a sound plays).
3. **Progression:** the output of the loop changes the next pass, so it is not identical every time.

## Loops inside loops

Most games nest loops of different lengths, and each layer has its own goal:

| Layer | Time scale | Example (a farming game) |
|---|---|---|
| **Moment-to-moment** | seconds | water a crop, hear the sound, see it sparkle |
| **Core loop** | minutes to a day in game | plant -> water -> harvest -> sell -> buy seeds |
| **Meta loop** | sessions to weeks | expand the farm, unlock a new area, finish a festival |

Short-term goals keep hands busy; medium-term goals give a reason to finish the session; long-term goals give a reason to come back tomorrow. When a game feels aimless, one of these layers is usually missing.

## Worked example: mapping a puzzle game

Take a match-three puzzle game.

- **Moment-to-moment:** swap two tiles -> match three -> tiles clear with a satisfying effect.
- **Core loop:** start level -> make matches to meet the goal within limited moves -> win or lose -> earn stars -> next level.
- **Meta loop:** collect stars to unlock new worlds; complete a themed event.
- **Resources:** moves (spent per swap), stars (earned per level), lives (spent on failure).

Now look for the quit point. A player who fails the same level five times has no new information and no progress: the loop has stalled. A designer might add a small reward for near-misses, a hint after repeated failure, or an alternate level path.

## Goals: make them visible

Players chase goals they can see. Useful goal design follows a few rules:

- **Show the next goal before the current one ends.** A visible "next upgrade costs 50 coins" gives the next loop a purpose.
- **Mix certain and uncertain rewards.** Fixed rewards build trust; occasional surprises add excitement.
- **Let players choose some goals.** Optional challenges and side quests support different motivations (more on that in the next lesson).

## Common mistakes

- **A loop with no output.** If finishing a cycle changes nothing, players feel they are running in place.
- **Too many resources in the core loop.** Five currencies in the first ten minutes overloads a new player. Introduce them one at a time.
- **Only long-term goals.** "Reach level 50" is meaningless at level 1 without smaller steps along the way.
- **Confusing the loop with the plot.** Story beats are not the core loop. The loop is what players *do* repeatedly.
- **Loops that reward the wrong thing.** If the fastest way to progress is a boring exploit, players will do it and then blame the game for being boring. Reward the behaviour you want.

## Quick recap

- The core loop is the shortest repeated cycle of player actions, written as verbs.
- Good loops have clear actions, feedback and progression.
- Games nest moment-to-moment, core and meta loops with short, medium and long-term goals.
- Find the quit point in a loop and change one rule to fix it.

## Try it

Open the Do tab and map the core loop and goals of a game you know well.


Map a game's core loop and the short, medium and long-term goals that keep players playing.

Core loops and goals

What is a “Core Gameplay Loop”?

How To Design a Gameplay Loop

## Why it matters

Two people can play the same game for completely different reasons. One wants to top the leaderboard, another wants to explore every corner, a third mostly enjoys chatting with friends. If you design only for yourself, you design for one of them. Motivation models help you see who you are leaving out, and decide on purpose whether that is fine.

## Bartle's player types

In 1996 Richard Bartle studied players of early online text games (MUDs) and described four types along two axes: whether players prefer **acting on** or **interacting with**, and whether they focus on **players** or the **world**.

| Type | Enjoys | Acts on / interacts with | Typical features they seek |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Achievers** | points, levels, completion | acting on the world | achievements, rankings, rare items |
| **Explorers** | discovering how things work | interacting with the world | hidden areas, lore, secrets, system depth |
| **Socialisers** | relationships and conversation | interacting with players | chat, guilds, co-op, emotes |
| **Killers** | competing with and dominating others | acting on players | PvP, rankings against people |

Bartle himself warns that the model was built for multiplayer worlds and that real people mix types and change over time. Use it as a checklist, not as a personality test.

## A broader lens: self-determination theory

Psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan describe three basic needs that make activities intrinsically motivating. Game researchers have applied this widely:

- **Competence:** feeling effective and improving. Supported by clear feedback, fair challenge and visible mastery.
- **Autonomy:** feeling in control of your choices. Supported by meaningful options, multiple ways to solve problems and optional goals.
- **Relatedness:** feeling connected to others. Supported by co-op, communities and characters players care about.

This model works for single-player games too, and it explains why rewards alone do not create motivation: a reward that feels controlling can actually reduce autonomy.

## Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

- **Intrinsic:** the activity is rewarding in itself (solving a puzzle, a well-timed jump).
- **Extrinsic:** a reward outside the activity (badges, currency, daily login bonuses).

Extrinsic rewards can guide attention, but if they become the only reason to play, players quit when they stop. Strong designs make the core activity satisfying first and add extrinsic rewards as signposts.

## Worked example: one level, four motivations

You are designing a single cave level in an adventure game. A quick pass with Bartle's types:

- **Achievers:** a time-trial medal and a counter for collectibles found (3/5).
- **Explorers:** a breakable wall leading to a hidden chamber with lore about the cave's history.
- **Socialisers:** an optional NPC who reacts to what the player has done; in a multiplayer version, a two-player door.
- **Killers / competitors:** a leaderboard for the time trial.

Then check self-determination theory: are there two routes through the cave (autonomy)? Does difficulty rise gradually with clear feedback (competence)? Does the NPC make the player care (relatedness)?

You may decide not to serve every type, and that is a valid design choice. The point is to decide deliberately.

## Ethics: motivation is not manipulation

Some monetised games use motivation research to push spending: limited-time pressure, loss aversion ("your streak will be lost"), and randomised paid rewards (loot boxes). Several countries regulate loot boxes, and app stores require odds disclosure. A professional designer should know these techniques, recognise when they exploit players (especially children), and push for honest design.

## Common mistakes

- **Treating player types as fixed boxes.** Players mix motivations and shift over time and between games.
- **Designing only for yourself.** Your own preference is one data point. Watch real players.
- **Adding rewards to fix a boring activity.** If the core action is not satisfying, a badge will not fix it.
- **Ignoring the audience.** A game for young children, a competitive esport and a relaxing puzzle app need very different motivational designs.

## Quick recap

- Bartle's four types (achievers, explorers, socialisers, killers) are a useful checklist from multiplayer games.
- Self-determination theory explains motivation through competence, autonomy and relatedness.
- Make the core activity intrinsically satisfying; use extrinsic rewards as signposts.
- Decide deliberately which motivations you serve, and do not exploit them.


Design for different player motivations using Bartle's types, self-determination theory and player research.

Player motivation

Bartle's Taxonomy - What Type of Player are You? - Extra Credits

Analyse games with the MDA framework, map core loops and goals, and design for what different players want.