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