I love statistics. They are wonderfully effective at hiding the truth.

Gamification has been especially guilty of this over the years. We have all seen the headline:

“82% increase in engagement after gamification was introduced.”

It sounds impressive. On its own, it means almost nothing.

An 82% increase could mean engagement went from 11 people to 20 people. That is a real improvement, but it is hardly the same as the grand transformation the headline suggests. If the programme only involved 50 people, the number looks even less dramatic once you see the actual scale.

Then there is the obvious question: what is being measured? In gamification, “engagement” is often treated like a magic word, despite being vague enough to mean almost anything. Did people log in more often? Click more buttons? Post more comments? Or did they actually contribute more value, learn more effectively, or collaborate better?

That distinction matters. More activity is not always better engagement. A learning platform might see an increase in logins because people want to maintain a streak, but if they leave two minutes later without doing anything meaningful, the metric is inflated, not insightful. Likewise, a community might see more comments, but if those comments are low-effort point-chasing, all you have really created is noise.

Time matters too. A rise from 100 engaged actions a week to 182 in the first week after launch looks fantastic. But if that falls to 60 a week a month later, what you measured was not sustainable engagement. It was novelty. Worse, it may be the start of burnout if the system relied on shallow mechanics rather than meaningful design. Andrzej makes this point often enough in different ways: good gamification should create relevance, depth, and long-term value, not just a short-lived spike in activity. Because apparently one framework was never enough.

This is the real issue. Statistics are not the problem. Context is.

If someone tells you engagement rose by 82%, you should immediately ask:

• How many people were involved?
• What was the starting point?
• How was engagement defined?
• Was it measuring quantity, quality, or both?
• How long did the increase last?

Without those answers, the number is just theatre.

Good gamification is not about producing a flashy percentage for a slide deck. It is about creating engagement that is meaningful, measurable, and sustainable. If the data cannot show that, the statistic may be accurate, but it is not telling the full story.

And that, sadly, is where gamification has often let itself down.

Narrative is one of those things people love to overcomplicate. Give someone the word “story” and they immediately reach for epic arcs, heroes, destinies, and some poor character being forced to fundamentally transform themselves by Act Three. That’s all very well if you’re writing films, but it’s far less helpful if you’re designing experiences for real people, in real contexts, on real days where they’re tired, distracted, and just trying to get through.

Over the years, I’ve talked a lot about Narrative Atoms and the Soap Hero’s Journey. They came from the same place: a frustration with big, monolithic narratives that look great on slides and fall apart the moment they meet reality.

Recently, I realised something slightly annoying. These two ideas want to be together. So this article introduces SOAP Atoms — not as a shiny new framework, but as a practical way to design narrative moments that support continuation rather than demand transformation.

The Problem With Big Stories

Traditional narrative models assume a few things: people want a story, people will follow it from beginning to end, and people have the emotional energy for a full journey. In most systems, none of that is true.

Users drop in halfway through. They arrive distracted. They leave and come back. They don’t want to be heroes — they want to make progress.

Narrative Atoms (A Quick Reminder)

Narrative Atoms are the smallest meaningful units of story. They are not plots or arcs — they are moments. Each atom combines an action, some form of feedback, an emotional response, and a sense of meaning.

On their own, they’re simple. Stacked together, they create something larger. Meaning doesn’t arrive in one go — it accumulates.

The Soap Hero’s Journey (Also a Reminder)

The Soap Hero’s Journey was my deliberately simple take on short-form storytelling. It mirrors how soap operas work: a clear trigger, a manageable challenge, a small transformation, an optional twist, and a resolution that feeds the next episode.

Each episode is self-contained and easy to enter, but character and plot still progress over time. Soaps don’t demand full commitment — they earn it gradually.

So What Are SOAP Atoms?

SOAP Atoms merge these two ideas. They are Narrative Atoms structured using a lightweight SOAP pattern, designed to be repeatable, survivable, and easy to bond together.

SOAP Atoms are not arcs. They are loops. Each atom is a complete narrative moment that helps someone continue.

The SOAP Atom Structure

The Most Important Rule

Progress becomes the next Situation.

Each SOAP Atom feeds the next one naturally. No grand narrative planning required. Meaning emerges through repetition.

Why SOAP Atoms Work

SOAP Atoms are designed for drop-in experiences, limited attention, real-world fatigue, and long-term systems. They don’t assume belief in destiny, purpose, or heroism. They assume people are trying, some days are hard, and continuation is a success.

SOAP Atoms vs Traditional Narrative

Traditional stories aim for transformation. SOAP Atoms aim for continuation. Instead of asking “Who will you become?”, they ask “Can you keep going?” In many contexts — learning, wellbeing, behaviour change, products — that’s the more honest question.

Final Thoughts

SOAP Atoms aren’t about telling better stories. They’re about designing moments that respect human reality: small actions, clear feedback, and meaning that accumulates over time. No epic quests required. Just enough narrative to help someone press start again.

Whilst I was working on the Dynamic Narrative Analytics  framework, I started writing this little manifesto. I thought I’d share it with you.

If you can’t measure it, you can’t trust it. If you can’t understand it, you can’t learn from it. If you can’t explain it, you can’t justify it.

Failure so often starts when opinion is presented as evidence and instinct is defended as proof. “I think” gets conflated with “I know” long before it earns that right. Real progress is a transition. From I think, to I know, to you know and you trust that I know. That transition does not come from more data. It comes from the right data and better measurement.

Metrics must be reliable and meaningful. Data collected for its own sake is just noise. Measurement only matters when you trust how the numbers were produced and understand what they represent.

Understanding is where measurement turns into learning. Explanation is where learning becomes defensible. If you cannot explain your reasoning, others cannot follow it and they will not trust the outcome.

Measurement without understanding is fragile. Understanding without explanation is invisible.
Measure with intent. Understand with discipline. Explain with clarity.

You must define what success looks like, you must define how you break that down into things you can measure and you must reliably measure it!

When you are in a room full of people saying “I think”, be the one who can say “I know”.

Recently my friend David Chandross wrote a great post about how serious games often miss their purpose, becoming more game than serious if you will. That it’s becoming less and less about the learning. That inspired me to reemphasise something I wrote about a while back.

Gamification should help people do things better. That’s it. But somewhere along the way, too many designers decided that the point was to make people play their systems, rather than benefit from them.

It’s easy to spot. You open an app or a training program and you’re immediately pulled into some shiny loop of collecting things, hitting targets, and chasing streaks. The problem is, you’re no longer learning or improving, you’re just playing. The system has become the goal.

If users are optimising for your mechanics instead of their progress, you’ve built something entertaining, not effective.

1. The Fiction of Fun for Fun’s Sake

Gamification isn’t about making things “fun”. It’s about making them work. If you can do that in a way that is fun – awesome!

Adding points, levels, or a bit of story only makes sense if it helps people reach a useful outcome. When the “game” becomes the point, everything loses focus. People end up feeding the system instead of feeding their growth.

This is where a lot of designers fall into what I call the “engagement trap”. They measure success by how many people are clicking, not by what they’re achieving. Engagement is easy. Meaningful progress is hard.

The goal isn’t to make people play your game. The goal is to make them better at their game.

2. The Foosball Fallacy

Too many organisations still believe that surface-level fun equals engagement. It’s the same logic that gives us office foosball tables, cereal bars, and “innovation lounges” that no one actually uses.

I wrote about this years ago in The Foosball Fallacy. Adding playfulness or perks doesn’t create purpose. It’s decoration. You can’t expect people to care just because something looks like a game.

Real engagement comes from meeting intrinsic needs: Relatedness, Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose (the RAMP model). If people are only chasing tokens, you’ve lost at least three of those four.

Shallow fun is the design equivalent of empty calories. Feels good for a moment, achieves nothing long term.

3. The Bribery Problem

Extrinsic rewards can kickstart a system, but if that’s all you rely on, you’re bribing behaviour, not building it.

When people do something only for the reward, you trigger what psychologists call the Overjustification Effect. The external incentive becomes the reason, and the internal motivation dies. Once the points or badges stop, so does the effort.

The best systems treat rewards as feedback, not payment. Recognition of progress, not manipulation to keep clicking.

If your gamified design makes people think, “What do I get for doing this?”, you’ve already lost their genuine interest.

4. The Integrity Test

Every system should be built around one question:
“Does this actually help the user achieve what they came here to do?”

That’s the “I” in the R.I.S.E. Framework: Relevance, Integrity, Sympathy, Empathy. If what you’ve designed benefits your KPIs more than your users, then you’ve created a manipulation engine, not a motivational one.

Gamification works best when user success and organisational success are the same thing. Anything else is noise.

Final Thought: Play Isn’t the Point

Gamification is a means, not an end. Play is a tool, not a target.

When users are “winning” your system but not improving in reality, you’ve built distraction, not design.

Keep it simple:

• Make it meaningful.
• Make it help.
• Make sure the game serves the goal, not the other way round.

Because if the user’s playing but not progressing, all you’ve done is waste their time in a slightly more colourful way.

Abandoned cart emails are one of those things that sound almost too obvious. Someone puts a shiny new kettle in their basket, forgets about it, and you gently nudge them a day later with an email that says: “Hey, you forgot something.” Simple. Effective. And for retailers, often the lowest-hanging fruit on the tree.

But then, a few days later, things get weird. Suddenly, the kettle has developed friends. Now your inbox is full of toasters, microwaves, sandwich makers, and possibly even a smug little milk jug. Somewhere in the retailer’s system, a switch has been flipped from “remind” to “relentless.”

Let’s translate that to the real world. Imagine you walk into a shop, fill your basket, then decide you don’t really need 14 tins of beans. You quietly put it down and leave. Two days later, there’s the shopkeeper on your doorstep holding your basket. “You forgot this. Fancy coming back?” Slightly odd, but maybe you shrug and go along with it.

Fast forward a week, and there’s another knock. This time, he’s brought a catalogue of everything vaguely bean-shaped. “You bought beans… perhaps you’d like these other beans. Or peas. Or soup. Or possibly bread. Because beans and bread? Classic.” At this point, it’s less charming and more unsettling.

Now, if he kept turning up every single day with a new parade of groceries, you’d tell him where to stick his basket pretty quickly. And that’s exactly what happens with emails. A reminder or two? Fine. Even a personalised nudge? That can work. But relentless bombardment? That’s not customer engagement, it’s digital stalking with a subject line.
If you want to structure this more deliberately, think of abandoned cart emails through the Hook–Frame–Action lens:

If you want to structure this more deliberately, think of abandoned cart emails through the Hook–Frame–Action lens:

• Hook: “You left something behind” grabs attention and sparks curiosity.
• Frame: Add relevance, not randomness. “Your kettle is still waiting” works; “Do you want peas?” does not.
• Action: Provide a clear, single call to action like “Return to your basket” rather than drowning people in choice.

Done well, this keeps your emails persuasive rather than pestering, and avoids becoming the door-knocking bean salesman.

One of the greatest lies we’ve told ourselves in gamification (and business in general) is that numbers speak for themselves. They don’t.

Numbers sit there, mute and smug, like a cat perched on a bookshelf—daring you to make sense of them. And like a cat, they’ll let you project whatever meaning you want onto them… until you get scratched.

That’s where Dynamic Narrative Analytics (DNA) comes in.

This isn’t about algorithms. It’s not about drowning in dashboards. It’s about recognising that every dataset tells a story—and if you don’t write the story, someone else will (probably in PowerPoint, with clip art).

And since gamification is really the art of turning behaviour into story-driven engagement, DNA is a natural ally.

The Four Genetic Markers of Narrative (AGCT)

Every story has its DNA, and every dataset can be read through four lenses:

• Assurance (Trust) → Can players trust the system? If the leaderboard looks rigged, the story collapses. Without trust, you don’t have engagement—you have churn.
• Gain (Opportunity) → What’s the good news? Players need visible “win moments” to feel progress—whether levelling up, hitting milestones, or unlocking new content.
• Clarity (Focus) → What’s the main quest? Mechanic soup confuses players. Clarity anchors the narrative to a core purpose.
• Threat (Risk) → Where’s the tension? Safe stories are boring. The best gamified systems build meaningful conflict—stakes that matter, not just “oops, try again.”

DNA forces us to interrogate our systems like sceptical storytellers, not passive number-crunchers.

Practical Application: A Learning Platform

Let’s ground this with an example. Imagine a gamified learning system:

• Assurance: Transparency in scoring—students know why they got 7/10, and trust the fairness.
• Gain: Progress reframed as achievement—“You’ve mastered Module 2, putting you ahead of 65% of learners.”
• Clarity: Every module tied back to the “main quest”: be exam-ready in six weeks.
• Threat: Missed deadlines aren’t a bland red X—they’re real stakes: “You’re behind pace. If this continues, your prep window shrinks.”

Suddenly the platform isn’t just tracking progress—it’s telling a learning story with trust, wins, focus, and risk.

The Metaphor Bit

Think of your gamification system like a box set of an epic RPG. Without DNA, it’s a 10-hour supercut of every cutscene, battle, and menu screen. The “content” is there—but the story? Lost.

With DNA, you get the curated version: quests, arcs, wins, and challenges woven into a playable journey. Players don’t just see stats—they live the story.

Why This Matters

Gamification often stops at the skin—space badges here, pirate treasure there—without ever turning the actual player data into a narrative.

DNA gives us a way to do that. It’s not another mechanic to bolt on, but a lens: a way to take raw behaviour and shape it into something human, engaging, and memorable.

Because at the end of the day, players don’t recall their XP totals. They remember the journey. And if your data tells them a story they can believe in, you’ve already won.

Over the years, I’ve looked at a lot of numbers. Far too many really. Like many of us, I’ve struggled to keep my head above the surface of massive pools of data, desperately trying to understand what the floating numbers are trying to tell me. Excel straining, my sense of self dissolving, the what is often staring me in the face, but what I’m missing is the so what?

The fundamental challenge of the modern workplace is that data, in its raw form, is mute. A number on a screen has no context, no history, and no motivation. Yet we project onto it the weight of being an “answer.” We present these silent numbers in meetings and expect them to drive brilliant decisions, but they often fall flat, creating more confusion than clarity.

The DNA Philosophy: Every Dataset Has a Narrative

It took me far too long to realise that the answer was not in the numbers, but in the story they told. All data, when given context, can tell a story and at heart, I’ve always been a story teller.

The Dynamic Narrative Analytics (DNA) philosophy is built on this single, foundational idea. Whether it’s a quarterly financial report, a user feedback survey, or a complex A/B test, there are hidden forces at play—positive and negative, connecting all of that data into a story. Our job is to uncover it.

The philosophy proposes that to do this, we must interrogate our data with a disciplined, holistic, and consistently human-centric set of questions. Instead of just asking, “What happened?”, we must act as skeptical investigators. 

It is not an algorithm for analysing data, rather a narrative layer on top of the data that follows four key rules or questions to present the story to the end user.

Because I love a slightly contrived framework, the DNA philosophy has a very on brand acronym to cover the four questions. AGCT: Assurance, Gain, Clarity, and Threat.

The Question of Trust (Assurance): Can I even trust this information? This is the bedrock of any credible story. Before we believe the narrative, we must validate the source. Is the data clean? Was the collection method sound? Is there a hidden bias? There is no story without trust.

The Question of Opportunity (Gain): What is the good news here? Every story needs a positive force. What in this data represents growth, success, or opportunity? Where is the upward trend? This gives us the measure of the total potential upside.

The Question of Focus (Clarity): Did we achieve our primary objective? In the midst of all this opportunity and risk, what was the one central plot point we must pay attention to? Every good story has a focal point, and it’s our job to find it in the data.

The Question of Risk (Threat): What is the bad news here? A story without conflict is a fairy tale. We must actively seek out the villain, the friction, or the challenge. What represents a loss, a cost, or a danger? Being hyper-aware of risk is the basis of mature, defensible decision-making.

As I say, this is a layer, a mental model for critical thinking. It is a way of seeing. And its power is best demonstrated by applying it to completely different worlds.

Putting the Philosophy to the Test

Let’s see how this might work in some practical applications.  

Application 1: The A/B Test (A Formal Analysis)

Imagine AGCT is built into an automatic DNA engine for presenting analytics for A/B tests. 

Assurance: The engine asks, “Was traffic split fairly? Did the test run long enough? Was the volume sufficient?” If not, the story is fiction, and the analysis stops.

Gain: It looks at all metrics that moved positively, weights them by business importance, and compiles a single score for the total upside.

Clarity: It isolates the primary goal and asks with laser focus, “Did we achieve this specific thing with high statistical certainty?”

Threat: It pessimistically hunts for any metric that moved in a negative direction, especially critical “guardrails” that protect the business. It is hyper-sensitive to harm. Did we see a drop in AOV? Did bounce rate go up?

From this structured inquiry, a rich narrative verdict is born: “Risky Winner”, “Net Loser”, “Solid Opportunity”. And from there a complete story can be born, not just a single green arrow.

You are not looking at just the goal metric, you are looking at the full picture, weighing up the overall risk and reward of the test.  “Whilst we saw an increase in the goal metric of conversion rate, we saw a significant drop on revenue and aov. Stop the test and re-evaluate the hypothesis.

Application 2: The Annual Report (A Philosophical Analysis)

Now, let’s leave the world of p-values and apply the exact same thinking to a glossy, 80-page corporate annual report. This is not a formal engine, but a way of reading and interpreting.

Assurance: Before reading a single headline, we ask about the source. “Has this been audited by an independent firm? Are there footnotes detailing changes in accounting methods? Are they relying on vague ‘adjusted’ metrics?” This is the intellectual equivalent of the Assurance score; it establishes the report’s credibility.

Gain: This is the story the report wants to tell. “Headline revenue is up 20%. Net profit is at a record high.” We gather all these positive points to understand the scope of the stated success.

Clarity: Last year’s report stated the #1 priority was “sustainable, organic growth.” We must now ask, “How much of that 20% growth came from an acquisition versus organic sales? Is that growth sustainable if it required cutting R&D spending?” This tests the headline claim against the stated strategic goal.

Threat: Now we become a skeptical analyst. We hunt for the counter-narrative. “Why is our market share down in a key region? Why is employee turnover up by 25%? Why has our debt-to-equity ratio worsened?” Actively seeking this information is crucial for a balanced view.

One Philosophy, A Universe of Understanding

And look at that, with one framework consisting of 4 simple questions, we’ve transformed a passive reading of an annual report into an active, critical analysis. We have moved beyond simply accepting the headline numbers and have constructed a deeper, more honest narrative.

Instead of saying, “It was a great year with 20% growth,” our story becomes:

“The company delivered impressive top-line growth, but, we did see a higher than usual employee churn” 

We’ve taken raw data and turned it into a simple, but much more human friendly narrative. We have taken the full context of all of  the data, not just the headline data, and built an easy to comprehend window into the true meaning of it all.

This seems like an ideal use for Generative AI if you ask me

It had to happen, I had to start writing about AI eventually. Why? Well, chatGPT is the ultimate gamification – a choose your own adventure with infinite outcomes!

I wanted to start with what AI is really bad at – being critical.

I’ve been using AI extensively over the last 12 months as a writing assistant, co developer and general wall to bounce ideas off, and I’ve learned a few things. First and foremost – AI is the best and worst cheerleader.

Everything you do is greeted with “that’s an amazing observation” or “what a great and insightful question” or “yes, this work is perfect, you are incredible”.
It like a constant stream of affirmation spewed out like shit from an incontinent dog,.but it is addictive. Suddenly, you are always right – how often can you say that in your day to day life

It might make you feel great, but it also makes you miss critical issues with what you are doing. Rather than critique, you are getting confirmation of your own preconceptions. By default, things like ChatGPT wants to please you. This kills critical thinking, like having your own personal yes man that empowers all your worst ideas.

When you are working with AI, you need to set boundaries. You need to tell it to be critical, to analyse and assess what you are doing for merit and for being just plain shit.

I actually created a chat bot through ChatGPT that was trained on all my work, then given a personality.  Ninja Monkey is sarcastic, dismissive and at times just plain rude. Bit, he does try to be critical and tell you the truth. If an idea is crap, he isn’t scared to tell you.

This is essential, as it has helped me write better content, but assessing and checking my ideas and critically considering it for it’s true merits – not just waving a pompom and saying “you are awesome, go you!” He’s more likely to threaten to slap me with a pair of nunchucks.

Hell of you tell him you’re Andrzej, he may even insult you!

“Let me know if you want to carry this style forward into a full post. Happy to help you add more “Marczewskisms” if you’re feeling particularly self-sabotagey.”

The point is, if you are using AI to help you, you need it to be honest with you.

When you ask it something related to your work, ask it to be honest and constructively critical.

Ask it to fact check with valid and respected literature.

Ask it to act like an editor, not a cheerleader.

This way what you get back is much more likely to have value and not just vanity.

Ah, the modern office. Where engagement is measured in beanbag density and the number of foosball tables per square metre. Welcome to the illusion factory.

I call it The Foosball Fallacy—the misguided notion that plonking down a few shiny toys in the corner of your open-plan office will somehow spark authentic employee engagement.

You’ve heard the logic:

“Let’s make work fun! We’ll add a games room and a cereal bar. People love cereal.”

What you get instead is superficial fluff. A workplace that looks like a startup, sounds like a pinball arcade, and still has an engagement score flatter than your last quarterly review.

Then comes The Beanbag Illusion, which is even cosier. Quite literally.

It’s the belief that providing comfort—softer lighting, flexible seating, and yes, beanbags—translates into meaningful culture. But here’s the thing:

Comfort is not culture. You can’t outsource purpose to interior design.

Employees don’t stay because they’re well-fed and slightly reclined. They stay when they feel valued. When they can grow. When they have autonomy. Mastery. Purpose. (Yes, you’ve met RAMP. You should really call them more often.)

These illusions persist because they’re easy. Buying a beanbag is simpler than building a feedback culture. Installing a foosball table is quicker than coaching line managers on trust.

But they’re also empty calories. Momentary boosts with zero nutritional value.

If you want real engagement, ditch the gimmicks and get serious about what drives people. Not perks. Not ping pong. People.

Recently, I decided to put down in words a simple set of rules I try to live by. Think Gibbs in NCIS – be fewer rules! I wanted to be able to give them to my kids, something they can refer back to in their mind when they are making decisions or looking to the the future. These are not grand declarations or world-changing insights, just small truths that I’ve learned (and often relearned) over time.

Here they are:

1. Be yourself, accept others.
2. Be kind, starting with you.
3. Be honest, take responsibility.
4. Be curious, seek truth.
5. Fear ignorance, not failure.
6. Be brave, never reckless.
7. Be strong, but don’t harden.
8. Be confident, but humble.
9. Be playful, never foolish.
10. Seek joy, live with purpose.

That’s it. Ten rules. But as I looked at them written down, I realised something else—they form the bones of how I approach gamification too. These personal rules could just as easily be a quiet manifesto for ethical, human-focused design. So here’s the deeper dive: what each rule means to me, and how it maps to designing meaningful gamified experiences.

1. Be yourself, accept others

What it means to me: You should be you, be who you want to be, love who you want to love. But, you also have to accept others for who they are, who they want to be, who they want to love. Diversity is what makes our world so amazing – if you are prepared to look. If you can’t accept yourself, how can you accept others?

Design meaning: Allow for player choice. Let people express who they are. Don’t design systems that try to flatten everyone into the same profile or playstyle. Diversity and Inclusion is good – no matter what anyone else might say.

RAMP: Autonomy & Relatedness — People need freedom to be themselves and feel seen in a system. You can’t create engagement without it.

2. Be kind, starting with you

What it means to me: My original key philosophy was the Bill and Ted philosophy of “Be excellent to each other”. I still believe that and most of this list comes from digging deeper. But this is so key – be kind to everyone, and that includes you. If you can’t be kind to yourself, how can you be kind to others?

Design meaning: Empathy in design is everything. Be gentle with your users. Don’t build systems that shame or punish people for learning or failing.

RAMP: Relatedness — Kindness builds connection. And that connection is the bedrock of any meaningful experience.

3. Be honest, take responsibility

What it means to me: Transparency, integrity, responsibility – all core tenants for how I try to live. Without these, it all seems a bit pointless. Be open about what you are doing, live with integrity and take responsibility for your actions and your behaviour!

Design meaning: Don’t manipulate. Be transparent about goals, rewards, and mechanics. If something doesn’t work, admit it and fix it.

RAMP: Purpose — When users trust your system, they’re more likely to stick with it. Integrity strengthens purpose.

4. Be curious, seek truth

What it means to me: Never stop trying to ask questions, learning and trying new things, exploring the world. But be rigorous, look for the facts, look for the truth. Verify everything, even if you don’t always like the answers. 

Design meaning: Encourage exploration and discovery. Let users uncover meaning rather than having it spoon-fed.

RAMP: Mastery & Autonomy — Curiosity leads to learning. Give people space to ask questions and follow their own paths.

5. Fear ignorance, not failure

What it means to me: This links to the last rule, there is no excuse for ignorance, now more than ever. The knowledge of the world is never more than a few inches from you. On the flip side, you can’t fear failure. Failure is how we learn, but we are so programmed by the world to believe that failure is bad. Fail fast, learn fast, never ever stop trying.

Design meaning: Make failure safe. Design systems where learning from mistakes is encouraged and expected.

RAMP: Mastery — Real growth comes through challenge, not avoiding it. If players aren’t allowed to fail, they’ll never really succeed.

6. Be brave, never reckless

What it means to me: Put yourself out there, try things that scare you, chase your dreams, but never go in blind. Make sure you understand the risks and have plans for what happens if things don’t go the way you expected!

Design meaning: Try bold things, but don’t lose the player along the way. Complexity for its own sake is just noise.

RAMP: Purpose — Bravery in design is admirable, but it has to serve the user’s goals, not just show off the designer’s cleverness.

7. Be strong, but don’t harden

What it means to me: Stand your ground, don’t let people walk all over you, but don’t harden your heart. It’s easy to let the world break you down, turn you against everyone. But if you keep your heart open, wonderful things can happen.

Design meaning: Build resilience into your systems, not rigidity. Good design bends before it breaks.

RAMP: Mastery — Let users struggle, adapt, and grow stronger. Just don’t make them do it blindfolded.

8. Be confident, but humble

What it means to me: Being sure if your abilities is fine, good even. You should be proud of the things you’ve done and the abilities you’ve learned. Show off, strut, but keep yourself in check, be humble. Don’t be arrogant and always be able.to back yourself up, and be willing to take on the opinions of others.

Design meaning: Don’t assume you know better than your users. Build feedback loops. Let them help shape the system.

RAMP: Autonomy — Confidence is good, but humility creates room for co-creation—and that’s where engagement really grows.

9. Be playful, never foolish

What it means to me: Play is powerful, but it isn’t the same as being silly. There’s a difference between humour and mockery, joy and distraction. Play is about finding lightness, creativity and connection—it’s not an excuse to avoid responsibility. Don’t be remembered for being a clown. Make sure they don’t think that of you.

Design meaning: Respect the power of play. Don’t treat it as an afterthought. But don’t mistake gimmicks for fun, either.

RAMP: Relatedness & Autonomy — Playfulness invites people in. Done right, it makes everything more human.

10. Seek joy, live with purpose

What it means to me: Life is for living. Look forward to opportunities to enjoy it. Find things you love, find people you love and who love you. Appreciate the little moments that bring you joy. That said, don’t live a frivolous life. Find meaning and purpose in what you do. You don’t have to change the world, but make sure you look for opportunities to do good—and to be good.

Design meaning: Design for something bigger than clicks. What’s the story? What’s the reason someone would come back tomorrow?

RAMP: Purpose — This is the heart of it all. Give people a reason to care, and they’ll do more than just participate—they’ll believe in what they’re doing.

What words of wisdom would you leave for your kids? As I said, my overriding philosophies are still Be Excellent to Each Other and Perfection in Simplicity, but what are yours?

Hey all, sorry it’s been a while!! Lots going on. First thing is – I recently had a diagnosis of ADHD – so a few changes ahead for me!!

Second, I’ve been writing a new book. Now, I’m not sure how good it is. It is written with the help of my Ninja Monkey Chat GPT, who basically knows more about me than me these days. Anyway, it is a very personal book about mental health and how I survive my Bastard Brain!. The idea is for it to be a playful support book for others who suffer with things like anxiety and depression based on my experiences and a little bit of Ludic Spirit

If you are interested in reading an early very very very rough draft, please let me know

Until next time – Press Start Anyway!!

I’ve finally done it! After countless hours of brainstorming and coding, I’ve created the ultimate game for those who live and breathe gamification. Say goodbye to boring gameplay—because there isn’t any—and wave farewell to contrived narratives. Game mechanics? Nah, not really! This is pure, unfiltered gamification with a satirical twist, designed to both engage and amuse.

What Makes PBL Battle So Special?

• No-Nonsense Fun:
  Forget traditional game elements. PBL Battle is not about complex stories or puzzles—it’s about pure, addictive engagement.
• Satirical Edge:
  It’s a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the futility of bad gamification. If you’re a gamification designer or consultant, you’re bound to appreciate the irony.
• Global Competition:
  Test your mettle by climbing the global leaderboard. How many times can you push the big red button before your streak ends?
• Challenging and Addictive:
  With its minimalistic design, PBL Battle proves that sometimes less is more. There’s no hidden trick or convoluted strategy—just a race to see who can push the button the most.

Ready to Join the Battle?

Try it for yourself and see if you have what it takes to reach the top of the leaderboard in PBL Battle! This is gamification, reimagined with a dash of satire and a whole lot of fun.

Play PBL Battle Now

_{*This is not the greatest game ever made and should act as a lesson to you all.}

Gamification gets a bad rap sometimes—and let’s be honest, it’s not undeserved. Overused leaderboards, pointless badges, and those “motivational” points that no one cares about have all contributed to the problem. But what if we could, quite literally, rise above all that? Enter R.I.S.E, a four-step approach to designing gamification that players actually want to engage with.

Relevance: Make it fit

Bad gamification often feels like sticking a plaster on a broken leg—sure, it’s there, but it’s not helping anyone. Gamification must align with the context, content, and audience. Throwing random points at users won’t fix a dull experience. Instead, ask yourself: does this enhance the experience or just tick a box?

Integrity: Respect the players

This one’s simple—don’t treat players like fools. Overly manipulative mechanics or thinly veiled cash grabs might work short term, but they destroy trust. Integrity means being honest with your players and creating systems that respect their time and intelligence.

Sympathy: Respect the content

We’ve all seen it—gamification slapped onto serious topics in a way that trivialises them. If the content is sensitive, or the tone is serious, your gamified elements should reflect that. It’s not about throwing fun at a problem; it’s about enhancing the content while respecting its purpose.

Empathy: Understand the players

Your audience isn’t a faceless blob of “users.” They’re individuals with needs, preferences, and boundaries. Take the time to understand who they are and design systems that resonate with them. Empathy means moving beyond “what do I want them to do?” and asking, “what do they need from this experience?”

RISE to the Challenge

Bad gamification is everywhere, but we don’t have to settle for it. By focusing on Relevance, Integrity, Sympathy, and Empathy, we can rise up and design experiences that players love—not just tolerate.

So, next time you’re tempted to slap points and badges onto something without thinking, stop. Ask yourself, “Does this RISE above bad design, or am I part of the problem?”

Rise up, my friends. The gamification rebellion has begun.

I am a big believer in the power of words. We often forget just how powerful they can be, whether it is talking to our friends, loved ones or – in this instance – potential customers.

In marketing, or CRO or any type of sales-like activity, just like with gamification, we are trying to encourage our users / customers to behave in a certain way. You need to capture their attention, keep them interested and then guide them towards an outcome of some sort – and this is really hard.

I built the the Hook – Frame – Action framework to see if I could create a clear and structured approach to achieving these goals, to create messaging that is both compelling and effective. I went back to the books (so to speak) and looked at cognitive biases again, a perennial favourite in gamification to see how those could be added to simple language to create higher impact.

Below is the fruits of me efforts. I look at the overall concept of Hook – Frame – Action, then some biases to use and finally some retail inspired examples.

I hope you find them handy and that they inspire you to consider your language more carefully.

Understanding the Hook – Frame – Action Framework

At its core, the Hook – Frame – Action framework simplifies persuasive communication into three essential steps:

1. Hook: Captures attention and sparks curiosity.
2. Frame: Shapes the audience’s perceptions and motivates engagement using emotional or psychological responses, often employing cognitive biases.
3. Action: Guides the audience with a clear and compelling call-to-action.

Step 1: Hook – Capturing Attention

The Hook is the starting point of any effective message. In a world filled with information, noise and distractions, the hook is your opportunity to stand out. It should grab attention, spark curiosity, and prepare the audience for what’s next. In arcade games, this was the attention screen, used to draw people into the game.

Crafting Effective Hooks

• Use the Curiosity Gap: Hint at a solution without revealing it straight away.
  • Example: “What if you could double your productivity in just one week?”
• Create a Sense of Urgency or Exclusivity.
  • Example: “Limited-time offer: Don’t miss out!”
• Tap into Novelty or Surprise.
  • Example: “This one change could save you thousands.”

Step 2: Frame – Shaping Perceptions

The Frame stage is where you shape how the audience perceives your message. It’s not enough to grab attention; you need to guide their thinking and motivate them. This is where the cognitive biases I mentioned come into play.

The Ten Key Cognitive Biases

Step 3: Action – Closing the Loop

The final step, Action, translates interest into behaviour. A strong call-to-action should be concise and clear:

1. Direct: Use action verbs like “Sign up,” “Order now.”
2. Benefit-Oriented: Highlight what the audience will gain.
   • Example: “Save £100 today!”
3. Immediate: Reduce hesitation by emphasizing urgency.
   • Example: “Offer ends at midnight—don’t wait!”

In the world of online retail, this might look more like a CTA button than a sentence. You have set the audience up, no you need to give them a simple call to action that reinforces the key message:

• CTA Button Text: “Shop the Sale”
• CTA Button Text: “Sign Up Now”
• CTA Button Text: “Get Started Today”

Retail Examples

1. Clothing Retailer (Scarcity Effect)
   • Hook: “Your perfect winter coat is waiting!”
   • Frame: “Only 5 left in your size—don’t let it slip away.” (Scarcity Effect)
   • Action: “Shop now and get free next-day delivery!”
   • CTA Button Text: “Shop the Sale”
2. Electronics Store (Anchoring Bias)
   • Hook: “Unbeatable savings on the latest tech!”
   • Frame: “Was £999, now just £699—save £300 today.” (Anchoring Bias)
   • Action: “Order now and upgrade your gadgets!”
   • CTA Button Text: “Order Now”
3. Beauty Products (Social Proof)
   • Hook: “Find out why everyone’s talking about this skincare set.”
   • Frame: “Trusted by 10,000+ happy customers for glowing skin.” (Social Proof)
   • Action: “Get yours today and receive a free gift!”
   • CTA Button Text: “Shop Now”
4. Furniture Store (Endowment Effect)
   • Hook: “Imagine your home transformed with this sofa.”
   • Frame: “Try it in your home for 30 days—risk-free!” (Endowment Effect)
   • Action: “Order today and enjoy free returns!”
   • CTA Button Text: “Buy Now”
5. Grocery Delivery (Zeigarnik Effect)
   • Hook: “Your basket is waiting!”
   • Frame: “Complete your order now and get free delivery on your first shop.” (Zeigarnik Effect)
   • Action: “Finish checking out today to claim your offer!”
   • CTA Button Text: “Complete Order”

Template

Use this template to design your campaign:

Product/Service: [Enter here]

• Hook: [Write your attention-grabbing statement here.]
• Frame: [Incorporate a cognitive bias to shape perception.]
• Action: [A clear and compelling call-to-action.]
• CTA: [A clear, very short version of your action]

Conclusion

With luck, this was interesting. I want the Hook – Frame – Action framework to be a practical and informed approach to creating messages that engage and convert – let me know in the comments if you think I managed it!

And before I forget – I trained a simple GPT to help https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6766e88c5280819185fc18528e492cbd-the-hook-frame-action-framework

Reading List

1. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98.
2. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61(6), 622–631.
3. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.
4. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn & Bacon.
5. Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 906–914.
6. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.
7. Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 40.
8. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
9. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins.
10. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.
11. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. Random House.

Designing Gamified Systems with Emotional Depth

Gamification is far more than sprinkling points and leaderboards over a system and hoping for the best. Real success lies in crafting meaningful experiences that connect with users on a deeper level. That’s where the BMEM Framework—Behaviour, Motivation, Emotion, and Mechanics—comes into play. It provides a robust foundation for designing systems that not only engage and entertain but also inspire and resonate.

This guide explores the framework in its entirety and delves deeply into how each element integrates with the others. By connecting Behaviour, Motivation, Emotion, and Mechanics, you’ll create systems that truly matter.

Building Engagement Step by Step

1. Behaviour: The Foundation of Action

Every great system begins with an understanding of behaviour. What are your users doing now? What do you want them to do? And, crucially, what is standing in their way? Behaviour is the foundation for creating experiences that guide users towards meaningful action.

Marczewski Behaviour Change Model

The Behaviour Change Model provides four key tools to help influence user behaviour​:

1. Motivation: Why do users act? What drives them to engage?
2. Knowledge: Do users understand what they need to do and why it matters?
3. Ability: Are they capable of performing the desired behaviour, or are there barriers in the way?
4. Nudge: What subtle prompts can steer users towards action without force?

Example in Practice: In a fitness app:

• Motivation: Highlight benefits like improved health or community encouragement.
• Knowledge: Provide video tutorials or step-by-step guides to show users how to perform exercises safely and correctly.
• Ability: Tailor workouts to different fitness levels or time constraints to reduce obstacles.
• Nudge: Use streak notifications or friendly reminders to help users stay consistent.

Integration

Behaviour sets the stage for all other elements. Without understanding what users do now and what drives them, you can’t expect mechanics or motivators to work. Nudges (Behaviour) might evoke curiosity (Emotion), which drives users to interact with features like unlocking hidden achievements (Mechanics). Behaviour is the “why” behind every system decision.

2. Motivation: Understanding the “Why”

If behaviour sets the stage, then motivation is the engine that powers user action. Without motivation, even the most beautifully designed system will fail to engage. The RAMP Framework and Three Layers of Motivation are invaluable tools for unpacking what drives users and ensuring you’re tapping into both their intrinsic and extrinsic needs.

RAMP Framework

Motivation is built on four key intrinsic drivers​​:

• Relatedness: The need to feel connected to others.
• Autonomy: A desire for control and the ability to make choices.
• Mastery: The drive to improve, grow, and succeed.
• Purpose: A sense of contributing to something bigger than oneself.

Three Layers of Motivation

This model extends motivation beyond intrinsic needs to include the following​:

1. Base Needs: Foundational requirements like safety and financial security. Without these, engagement is impossible.
2. Emotional Needs: Intrinsic motivators like mastery, autonomy, and relatedness.
3. Trivial Needs: Extrinsic motivators such as badges, points, or prizes. These can be effective in short-term engagement but should be used sparingly.

Example in Practice: In the same fitness app:

• Base Needs: Ensure essential features like basic progress tracking are free and accessible.
• Emotional Needs: Allow users to customise their fitness goals (Autonomy) and track their progress visually (Mastery).
• Trivial Needs: Reward users with badges or leaderboard spots for completing challenges to provide instant gratification.

Integration

Motivation bridges behaviour and emotion. Helping users achieve mastery (Motivation) sparks pride (Emotion), which is reinforced through mechanics like leaderboards and trophies. Without understanding users’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, mechanics lack purpose, and emotions lack depth.

3. Emotion: Crafting Meaningful and Memorable Experiences

Emotion is the soul of gamification. It’s what transforms functional systems into memorable experiences. By understanding the full spectrum of emotions, from positive feelings like pride and joy to negative motivators like urgency and alarm, you can craft journeys that resonate deeply with users.

The Emotional Spectrum

Emotions in gamification can range from positive to negative, and both have their place when used thoughtfully. Key emotions include:

• Positive: Joy, pride, gratitude, hope.
• Complex: Curiosity, immersion, surprise.
• Negative (but useful): Fear, urgency, shame, sadness.

How to Apply Emotions

Let’s link these emotions to specific techniques:

• Hope: Use progress trackers or aspirational goals to give users a sense of optimism.
  Example: “You’re just one step away from your weekly goal!”
• Pride: Showcase personal achievements through trophies, badges, or completion certificates. Example: A fitness app might celebrate a user as the “Workout Champion of the Week.”
• Curiosity: Incorporate mystery rewards or hidden features to spark exploration. Example: Unlock secret workouts after consistent engagement.
• Urgency: Use countdowns or limited-time challenges to encourage immediate action. Example: “Only 3 hours left to join this group challenge!”

Tying Emotions to the User Journey

The User Journey Phases naturally align with specific emotions:

1. Discovery Phase: Spark curiosity and hope to draw users in.
2. Onboarding Phase: Use joy and love to create a welcoming environment and instil confidence.
3. Immersion Phase: Evoke pride and gratitude as users progress and contribute.
4. Mastery Phase: Reward users with recognition, amplifying pride and satisfaction.
5. Replay Phase: Introduce urgency or curiosity to encourage ongoing engagement.

There are a lot of emotions you can consider, here is my little Emotions Spectrum to think about!

Integration

Emotion doesn’t exist in isolation; it works alongside behaviour, motivation, and mechanics. For instance, a leaderboard (Mechanic) might trigger competitive pride (Emotion) while reinforcing mastery (Motivation). Designing for emotion ensures your system not only functions but connects. However, it may also drive frustration if the desire to be at the top starts to outweigh the joy and pride of the work you do to be there.

4. Mechanics: The Tools of Engagement

Mechanics are the tools that bring your system to life. Points, badges, narratives, challenges—these are the tangible elements users interact with. But good mechanics aren’t one-size-fits-all. They must align with user behaviours, motivations, and emotions to succeed.

HEXAD Framework

The HEXAD Framework links mechanics to six user types​​:

1. Achievers: Progression systems like levels, badges, and leaderboards.
2. Socialisers: Group challenges, chat features, or team-based goals.
3. Free Spirits: Exploration mechanics, hidden features, or personalisation options.
4. Philanthropists: Altruistic tasks, mentoring opportunities, or charity-based challenges.
5. Players: Points, streaks, and prizes to drive extrinsic engagement.
6. Disruptors: Creative tools, voting systems, or user-generated challenges.

Example in Practice: In a fitness app:

• Achievers: Track personal bests with detailed statistics and achievement badges.
• Socialisers: Join group fitness challenges or share progress in team chats.
• Free Spirits: Customise workout routines or explore new types of training.
• Philanthropists: Mentor others in the community or contribute to group goals.
• Players: Earn rewards for completing consistent workouts or maintaining streaks.
• Disruptors: Create personal challenges or vote on new app features.

Integration

Mechanics must support the other elements of the BMEM Framework. For example:

• A leaderboard (Mechanic) appeals to Achievers and Players, reinforcing mastery (Motivation) and evoking pride (Emotion).
• Hidden features (Mechanic) intrigue Free Spirits, sparking curiosity (Emotion) and encouraging exploration (Behaviour).
• Dynamic difficulty scaling (Mechanic) appeals to Achievers, reinforcing mastery (Motivation) while evoking pride and determination (Emotion). It also supports behaviour by keeping users engaged with tailored challenges.
• Collaborative quests (Mechanic) attract Socialisers and Philanthropists, fostering relatedness and purpose (Motivation). These evoke camaraderie and gratitude (Emotion) while encouraging teamwork and shared problem-solving (Behaviour).
• Time-limited rewards (Mechanic) engage Players and Achievers, leveraging extrinsic rewards and mastery (Motivation). They evoke urgency and excitement (Emotion) while driving consistent engagement (Behaviour).

Bringing It All Together

Here’s how the BMEM Framework integrates into a cohesive system:

1. Behaviour: Use nudges and remove barriers to drive daily actions.
2. Motivation: Leverage RAMP to address intrinsic needs while using extrinsic rewards judiciously.
3. Emotion: Map emotions to the user journey, crafting moments of pride, curiosity, and urgency.
4. Mechanics: Align HEXAD types and associated mechanics to ensure personalisation and relevance.

Together, these components create systems that not only engage but inspire.

Final Thoughts

Gamification is toolbox full of complex tools and gadgets. As with any tools, you need to know how and when to use them to get the best results. By thoughtfully combining Behaviour, Motivation, Emotion, and Mechanics, you can create gamified systems that go beyond surface-level engagement to deliver real, meaningful value. Systems that not only entertain but inspire, resonate, and endure.

Want to explore gamification frameworks in depth? Visit Gamified UK to dive into the tools and ideas that make gamification great.

References

1. Fogg, B. J. (2009). Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. Retrieved from https://www.bjfogg.com.
2. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
3. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7.
4. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The Psychology of Curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75.
5. Tondello, G. F., Wehbe, R. R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., & Nacke, L. E. (2016). The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. DOI: 10.1145/2967934.2968082.
6. Marczewski, A. (2019). Gamification Design Framework Toolkit. Gamified UK.
7. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Work. Challenges Game AI 1–4 (2004). doi:10.1.1.79.4561
8. Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., Mccarthy, I. & Pitt, L. Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Bus. Horiz. 58, 411–420 (2015).
9. Aristotle On the Soul c.350 B.C.E, translation: J. A. Smith, The Internet Classics Archive, MIT, Retrieved 2 February 2016
10. Izard, C. E., Libero, D. Z., Putnam, P. & Haynes, O. M. Stability of emotion experiences and their relations to traits of personality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64, 847–860 (1993).
11. Ekman, P. An argument for basic emotions. Cogn. Emot. 6, 169–200 (1992).
12. Nathanson, D. L. Shame and pride : affect, sex, and the birth of the self. (Norton, 1992).
13. Robinson, D. L. Brain function, emotional experience and personality. Neth. J. Psychol. 64, 152–168 (2008).