1. modes of play
a frame analytic account of video gaming
Sebastian Deterding
Graduate School of Media and Communication, Hamburg University
Hamburg, August 14, 2013
c b

2. 1
Research
problem
3
Method
2
Theory
4
Empirical
results
5
Outlook
2

3. 3
Method
2
Theory
4
Empirical
results
5
Outlook
3
1
Research
problem

4. the trouble with formalist game studies
4

5. Game:
an object with formal
features
5
what it sees

6. Gaming:
a mode of
engagement
6
what it misses (or takes for granted)

7. why does this matter?

8. Convergence: one use,many objects
8

9. jumping cracks on walkways six degrees of wikipedia
9
informal games: one use,many objects

10. Convergence: one object,many uses
Gaming
game
Reading
book Sending
e-mail
Movie
watching
Music
listening
10

11. Internet Browsing
Video editing
multimedia display
Virtual world »Home«
Text, audio, video chat
Online TV/DVD streaming
Media store (film, music, TV)
CD, MP3, DVD, BluRay player
...
Convergence: one object,many uses

12. debugging
playtesting/reviewing
making a machinima
testing screen resolution
a scientific study
learning (serious games)
sports (e-sports)
work (goldfarming)
instrumental play: game uses ...
12
Taylor 2006, Nardi 2009, Sicart 2011

13. that lack typical »game« features (negotiable consequence …)
13

14. And trouble the notion of a »magic circle«
14

15. Jesper Juul
»The magic circle is the boundary that
players negotiate. (…)
Game scholarship should be about
analyzing the conventions of this
boundary, and how and when this
boundary is created and negotiated.«
the magic circle and the puzzle piece (2008: 62)
15

16. frame analysis evoked as a solution
16

17. frame analysis: an answer to game convergence?
• Convergence & instrumental play destabilise games
as objects, widen gap between objects and uses
• Formalist conceptions of games don’t account for
fluid configurations & situated usagee.g. Salen & Zimmermann
2004, Juul 2005
• Researchers suggest micro-sociological accounts in
responseMalaby 2007, Nardi 2009, Juul 2008
• Most prominent suggestion by far has been frame
analysis (FA)Juul 2008, Deterding 2009, Glas et al. 2011
17

18. Develop a systematic frame
analytic account of video gaming
(to determine whether it answers to the conceptual challenges
of convergence and instrumental play)
research goal
18

19. state of research
1. FA is only pointed at, frequently misconstrued
e.g. Fine 1983, Copier 2007, Pargman & Jakobsson 2008, Consalvo 2009, Stenros 2010, Waern 2012
2. FA is critiqued as structuralist, ignoring process and
subjectivity e.g. Denzin & Keller 1981, Collins 1988, Warfield Rawls 2003, Stenros 2010
3. FA is critiqued as subjectivist, ignoring structure
materiality (sic) e.g. Giddens 1988, Fine 1991, Copier 2007, Crawford 2012
4. Existing empirical research on processes of framing,
but not the conventionse.g. Linderoth 2004, Aarsand 2007
5. Little empirical research on instrumental play
19

20. research objectives
1. Construct a systematic FA of video gaming
2. Explicate its processuality
3. Explicate the role of materiality
4. Describe frame conventions of video gaming
5. Describe specifics of instrumental gaming
theoreticalempirical
20

21. 1
Research
problem
3
Method
4
Empirical
results
5
Outlook
21
Theory
2

22. »I assume that when individuals attend
to any current situation, they face the
question: ‘What is it that’s going on
here?’«
Erving Goffman
frame analysis (1986: 8)
22

23. A frame is »the definition of a situation«:
»principles of organization which govern
events ... and our subjective involvement
in them.«
Erving Goffman
frame analysis (1986: 8, 10-11)
23

24. RO1: Basic tenets of frame analysis
• Frames are socially shared and reproduced
»organising principles« for types of situations
• They organise both covert experience and overt
behaviour and matter
• They do so materially (how X is), epistemically (how
people perceive, conceive, identify, expect X), and
normatively (how people demand X ought to be)
24

25. RO1: aspects organised by frames
• Motivational relevancies
• Rules for action and communication
• Attentive access, focus, involvement
• Emotion (display)
• Objects, settings, events
• Actors and their footing
• Internal organisation of the situation
• Metacommunication and transformation rules
• Frame limits and gearing into the world
25

26. ro1: definitions
• Frame: The total mesh of actors (including their dispositions and attitudes),
objects, settings, actions, communications and events (and their features) that
reproduces-and-changes their perceivably similar co-occurrence as types of
situations across space and time
• Framing: The situational process of a set of actors, objects, settings, actions,
communications, events self-organising as a recognisable type of situation
• Frame perception: An actor’s perception of the current framing of a situation
• Frame understanding: An actor’s reflexive apprehension of a frame perception
• Frame experience: An actor’s phenomenal experience of the former two
• Frame configurations: The features of situationally arranged objects and
settings that align with a frame
• Frame dispositions: Embodied properties enabling an actor to perceive, identify,
enact a specific frame
26

27. ro2: the processuality of frames
• Integrated ethnomethodology & practice theory to
account for situational constitutionGarfinkel 1967, 2002, Mondada
2011, Warfield Rawls 2003, Schatzki 2002
• Integrated structuration theory to account for long-
term social institutionalisation & changeGiddens 1984
• Integrated technical frames to account for role of
technology in institutionalisationBijker 1987
27

28. Frame perception/
understanding A
Actor A
Object/setting C
Actor B
Frame perception/
understanding B
Event C
Metacomm. B, C
Communication B, C
Action B
informs ...
confirms
challenges
guides
informs attention, perception, understanding of
confirms/challenges
Metacomm. A
Communication A
Action A (re)configures
28
Ro2: framing process
Garfinkel 1967, 2002, Mondada 2011, Warfield Rawls 2003, Schatzki 2002, Aarsand 2007
produces
produces

29. Ro2: the processuality of gaming
• Enactment as »gaming« involves two constitutive
orders: gaming a game and this game
• No »magic circle« necessary: just actors’ perception,
understanding, enactment as »gaming« in open,
sequential, indexical coordination Aarsand 2007
• Metacommunication does occur, but is neither
frequent, nor necessary, nor sufficient to constitute
»gaming« (metacommunication is also indexical)
29

30. frame
total mesh of actors, objects/settings, processes producing-changing the reoccurrence of similar situations
framing
Enactment of a situation as being
of a certain type
preconfigures
reproduces/changes
obduracy
Features of objects/settings
stabilise possible actions, events,
communications vis-à-vis actors
socialisation
Disposition of actors
stabilise possible understandings,
perceptions, actions vis-à-vis objects
30
Ro2: frame and framing processes
Giddens 1984, Bijker 1987

31. game-related frames/framings
paidia ludus
Play frame Game frame
Designed objects/settingsDesigned objects/settings Toys and playgrounds Games and gaming grounds
FramingFraming Playing Gaming
Incidental objects/
settings
Incidental objects/
settings
Playlike interactions Gamelike interactions
Designed objects/settingsDesigned objects/settings Playful interactions Gameful interactions
KeyingKeying Playful keying Gameful keying
31
transformingkeyingprimaryframe
frame

32. ro3: the materiality of frames
• Integrated affordance concept from ecological
psychology Mead 1938, Gibson 1986, cf. Noble 1979, Heft 1989, Chemero 2003
• Affordance: current relation of actor dispositions
and environment features that specifies possible
future actions and events relevant to the actor
• Social: Stemming from and tied to social world,
requiring social learning
• Situated: Indexical, framed, (re)configurable
• Extended: Encompasses action, motivation,
emotion, meaning
32

33. ro3: the materiality of gaming
• Game objects/settings afford frame-aligning actions,
communications relative to actor dispositions
• Game objects/settings co-constitute and indicate the
framing »gaming«
• Frame dispositions disclose game objects/settings
• Framing specifies situationally intelligible and
appropriate uses of game objects/settings
• Game objects/settings
• articulate chanciness and cause-effect links
• mute consequentiality
• compress cause-effect links and focus attention into one scene
33

34. research objectives
1. Construct a systematic FA of video gaming
2. Explicate the role of process
3. Explicate the role of materiality
4. Describe the frame conventions of video gaming
5. Establish the specifics of instrumental gaming
34

35. 1
Research
problem
2
Theory
4
Empirical
results
5
Outlook
35
3
Method

36. research method
Describe frame conventions of leisurely & instrumental video gaming
descriptive,
theory-generating
Qualitative research, grounded theory
Corbin & Strauss 2008
theory-guided
Starting with conceptual framework
Maxwell 2004
directed qualitative content analysis
Initial guiding framework,
open for emergence/fading of concepts
Hsieh & Shannon 2005, Gläser & Laudel 2010
36

37. Data collection strategy
research objective strategy
Frame conventions of leisurely and
instrumental gaming (RO4,5) =
Sample & compare data on both
Cognitive schemata that are … Episodic interviews Flick 2010
Intersubjective and ...
Purposive sampling of subjects to maximise
variation across relevant dimensions
Taken-for-granted
Invite recall of norm breaches Garfinkel 1967
Invite contrasting comparison of diverging forms
Goffman 1986
37

38. research process
Conceptual
framework
Interview guide
Sampling strategy
Interviewing
Transcription
Coding/Memoing
Integration
theory data collection & analysis writeup
Cf. Corbin & Strauss 2008, Gläser & Laudel 2010 38

39. initial conceptual framework
aspects organised by frames possible variations of frames
Motivational relevancy Settings Goffman 1963, Deterding 2013
Rules for action and communication Devices Deterding 2013, Fritz et al. 2012
Objects, settings, events Genres Deterding 2013, Fritz et al. 2012
Attentive access, focus, involvement Contextures Goffman 1963, Simon 2007, Deterding 2013
Emotion (display) Age Fritz et al. 2012
Actors and footing Gender Fritz et al. 2012
Internal organisation Gaming intensity Fritz et al. 2012
Metacommunication
Frame limits
Gearing into the world Goffman 1986
39

40. purposive sampling for variation
dimension participant #1 ... participant #n
Gender (male, female) female
Age (19-50+) 53
Gaming intensity (low-intense) low
Genre (Casual, sport, simulation, Jump & Run,
Action/Shooter, …)
Casual, social
games
Device (PC, Browser, Console, mobile console …) Tablet, Browser
Setting (Home, arcade, LAN party, ...) Home
Contexture (Singleplayer, F2F Multiplayer,
synchronous online multiplayer…)
Singleplayer
Form (Leisurely, instrumental) Leisurely
1Fritz et al. 2012 2Deterding 2013 3Simon 2007 40

41. research key points
• 19 interviewees gaming leisurely and instrumentally:
game journalists, designers, researchers, e-sport
athletes, »regular« gamers
• Semi-structured interviews, 90-120 min. length, plus
accompanying participant observation
• Coding and analysis w/ MAXQDA
41

42. 1
Research
problem
3
Method
2
Theory
5
Outlook
42
4
Empirical
results

43. instrumental keyingsleisurely modes
Exotelic instrumental goal
Professional norms
Highly consequential
Mostly controlled
Autotelic enjoyment
Sportsmanship norms
Slightly consequential
Mostly autonomous
43
Review gaming
Analytic gaming
E-sport training
E-sport tournament
Relaxing gaming
Socialising gaming
Engrossing gaming
Hardcore gaming
Competitive gaming

44. • Not one video game frame: multiple modes of gaming
around motivational relevancyStrong 1979
• Participation norms emerged as cluster of conventions:
Whether to play what when with whom, and cease play
• Settings shield from disapproving onlookers
• Devices fit socialisation and modes better or worse
• Genres fit modes and affect participation norms through
closure points, participation dependency, initiation effort
• Contextures matter as social closeness: response presence
and past/future interactions affect strength of participation
and harmony norms
RO4: conventions of video gaming
44

45. RO4: conventions of video gaming
Motivation • Autotelic enjoyment (of euphoric ease, engrossment)
Rules
• Playing by the letter and the spirit of the rules; no circumvention of technically given scope of action (»cheating«)
• Strategic action is allowed and demanded (gameworthiness), but to be balanced with enjoyment of others (harmony)
Emotion
• Display care about outcome (no »spoilsporting«), but remain cool enough to strategise
• Amplified arousal (display) in multiplayer gaming through up- & downtalking, emotion performance
Attention
• Easy material access to game state, material covering of »hidden information«
• Focus on and engrossment in game state allowed and expected
Internal organisation,
actors
• Gaming encounter (ratified participants: onlooker, player, …) encloses gameplay (player in rule focus, character in
fiction focus) organised in rounds; further inner laminations possible (game in game, fiction in fiction)
Objects, settings,
events
• Dedicated rooms shield from embarrassment through disapproving onlookers
• Devices offer joint focus of attention and action
Metacommunication • Players and devices need interaction sequences to mutually establish beginnings and endings
Gearing into the
world, frame limits
• Gaming is »slightly consequential«: enough to be arousing, not too much to induce anxiety
• Actions, objects, settings are configured to minimise bodily harm (e.g. made symbolic)
• Actions, communications, events are framed »as if«, decoupled from surrounding interactions
• Detachment of self from outcome after gaming encounter is expected (»good winner/loser«)
• Depictions & enactments of sex, violence, nazism are controversial
45

46. r04: modes of leisurely gaming
relaxing socialising engrossing hardcore competitive
Motivational
relevancy
Relaxation Relatedness Engrossment Competence Achievement
Telicity Very low Low Medium High Very high
Absorption Very low Low Very high High Very high
Arousal Very low Medium-high Medium High Very high
Gameworthiness Very low Low Medium High Very high
Harmony Very low/absent Very high Low/absent Very low/absent Very low
Typical contexture Mostly singleplayer F2F Multiplayer Mostly singleplayer Mostly singleplayer Multiplayer
Typical genres
Social & casual
games
Party & board
games
RPG, adventure,
TBS, simulation
Shooter, RTS,
action, MMORPG
Combat, sports,
shooters, RTS
Typical devices Mobile, tablet, PC Console, PC PC, console Console, PC PC, console
Typical settings
Transit, recreation
spots, home
Private or shared
room at home
Private room at
home
Private room at
home
Private room at
home
46
Cf. Strong 1979

47. »I would call it a game –
but I did not play it.«
Object
Framing
ro5: Instrumental gaming

48. ro5: instrumental gaming
• Again, multiple forms of instrumental gaming:
reviewing, analysing, training, tournament
• Participants reported instrumental gaming to be
»not playing«, used emic terms to distinguish them
• But behaviour and configurations highly similar to
leisurely gaming
• And people reported »slipping« from instrumental
into leisurely
‣ Instrumental play is a keying: a re-framing
48

49. Keyings are »conventions by which a
given activity, ... meaningful in terms of
some primary framework, is transformed
into something patterned on this activity
but seen by the participants to be
something quite else.«
Erving Goffman
frame analysis (1986: 43-44)
49

50. e.g.A rehearsal
50

51. ro5: controlled motivation
• Instrumental keyings give rise to dysphoric tension
= controlled motivationGoffman 1953, 1972, Deci & Ryan 2012
• When current needs mismatch situational givens
and salient controlling motivations keep individual
from changing or leaving
• Leisurely gaming typically allows freedom to change
or leave the situation: Taken-for-granted absence of
controlling motivation is part of game enjoyment
51

52. 1
Research
problem
3
Method
2
Theory
4
Empirical
results
52
5
Outlook

53. summary
• FA distinguishing »games« as objects/settings and
»gaming« as situational framing accounts for
• Convergence: Situational actor-object relation affords gaming, but actors
constitute it with objects
• Instrumental play: A keying of gaming as instrumental task
• The is no one video gaming frame, but leisurely modes of
gaming around types of enjoyment and instrumental
keyings around types of instrumental goals
• Leisurely gaming is enjoyable partially because it provides
the autonomy to reconfigure or leave the situation
53

54. limitations
• Small, homogeneous sample, qualitative study
‣ Calls for quantitative validation, cross-cultural &
historical comparison for generalisability
• Mainly interview data
‣ Calls for observational data for actual behaviour
• Relatively small number of (instrumental) contexts
‣ Calls for broadening across more contexts
54

55. Ramifications & Future research
• »Gaming« as frames and framing suggests
theoretical approach to »media« in age of
convergence
• Situational autonomy support important for game
enjoyment
‣ Poses challenge for serious games, gamification
in low-autonomy situations
• Situational factors important for game enjoyment
‣ Calls for ecological approach to/studies of game
enjoyment »in the wild«
55

56. sebastian@codingconduct.cc
@dingstweets
codingconduct.cc
Thank you.

57. References
Aarsand, P. A. (2007). Around the Screen: Computer activities in children’s everyday lives. Linköping University.
Bijker, W. E. (1987). The Social Construction of Bakelite: Toward a Theory of Inventiom. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Huges, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of
Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 159–187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chemero, A. (2003). An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5
Consalvo, M. (2009). There is No Magic Circle. Games and Culture, 4(4), 408–417. doi:10.1177/1555412009343575
Copier, M. (2007). Beyond the Magic Circle: A Network Perspective on Role-Play in Online Games. Utrecht University. Retrieved from http://igitur-
archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2007-0710-214621/index.htm
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, London, New
Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, Personality, and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory. In R. M.
Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 85–107). New York: Oxford University Press.
Deterding, S. (2009). The Game Frame: Systemizing a Goffmanian Approach to Video Game Theory. In DiGRA 2009. DiGRA. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/
dl/db/09287.43112.pdf
Deterding, S. (2013). Mediennutzungssituationen als Rahmungen: Ein Theorieangebot. In O. Jandura, A. Fahr, & H.-B. Brosius (Eds.), Theorieanpassungen in der
digitalen Medienwelt (pp. 47–70). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Fine, G. A. (1983). Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Fine, G. A. (1991). On the Macrofoundations of Microsociology: Constraint and the Exterior Reality of Structure. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 161–177.
Flick, U. (2010). Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung (3rd ed.). Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Fritz, J., Lampert, C., Schmidt, J.-H., & Witting, T. (Eds.). (2012). Kompetenzen und exzessive Nutzung bei Computerspielern: Gefordert, gefördert, gefährdet? Berlin:
Vistas.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, Malden, Ma: Polity Press.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim's Aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glas, R., Jorgensen, K., Mortensen, T., & Rossi, L. (2011). Framing the game: Four game-related approaches to Goffman’s frames. In G. Crawford, V. K. Gosling, & B.
Light (Eds.), Online Gaming in Context: The social and cultural significance of online games (pp. 142–158). London: Routledge.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (4th ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag
für Sozialwissenschaften.
57

58. References
Goffman, E. (1953). Communication Conduct in an Island Community. University of Chicago.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1972). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the Body: An Intentional Analysis of Gibson’s Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
19(1), 1–30.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277–88. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Juul, J. (2008). The Magic Circle and the Puzzle Piece. In S. Günzel, M. Liebe, & D. Mersch (Eds.), Conference Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games
2008 (pp. 56–67). Potsdam: Potsdam University Press.
Linderoth, J. (2004). The meaning of gaming: Beyond the idea of the interactive illusion. University of Göteborg.
Malaby, T. M. (2007). Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture, 2(2), 95–113. doi:10.1177/1555412007299434
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). A Model for Qualitative Research Design. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Mead, G. H. (1938). Philosophy of the Act. (C. W. Morris, J. M. Brewster, A. M. Dunham, & D. Miller, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.
2010.08.019
Nardi, B. A. (2009). My Life as a Night Elf Priest: An Anthropological Account of World of Warcraft. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Noble, W. G. (1979). Gibsonian Theory and the Pragmatist Perspective. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 11(1), 65–85.
Pargman, D., & Jakobsson, P. (2008). Do you believe in magic? Computer games in everyday life. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2), 225–244. doi:
10.1177/1367549407088335
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Stenros, J. (2010). Playing the System: Using Frame Analysis to Understand Online Play. In FuturePlay 2010. New York: ACM.
Strong, P. M. (1979). The Ceremonial Order of the Clinic: Parents, Doctors and Medical Bureaucrats. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Waern, A. (2012). Framing Games. In DiGRA Nordic 2012. DiGRA.
Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2009). Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. Cambridge, London: MIT Press.
Warfield Rawls, A. (2003). Orders of Interaction and Intelligibility: Intersections between Goffman and Garfinkel by Way of Durkheim. In A. J. Trevino (Ed.), Goffman’s
Legacy (pp. 216–253). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
58