Designing Player Behavior: Using Fogg to Build Better Experiences(2/2)

Ability first princile

Six months after that failed tutorial playtest, the studio wanted to redesign. Not just shorten the tutorial, but rebuild it intentionally using the Fogg framework.

The new approach was systematic. They started with ability, making the behaviour as easy as possible. Then they aligned motivation with the actual experience. Finally, they designed prompts that matched the situation.

The result: 18/20 completion rate. Same information taught. Same mechanics learned. Completely different player experience.

This is what designing with B=MAP looks like; Not fixing problems after they emerge, but building behaviors intentionally from the start.

1. The ability-first principle

Most designers start with motivation: "How do we make players excited about this?"

But Fogg argues the opposite: maximize ability before worrying about motivation.

Why? Because high motivation is fragile. It fades. Players arrive excited but that excitement depletes as friction mounts. If the behavior is difficult, even motivated players will quit.

But if the behavior is absurdly easy, even modest motivation leads to action. And sustains.

How the studio redesigned for ability

The original tutorial had multiple ability barriers:

• Time: 12 continuous minutes

• Brain Cycles: Constant new information

• Non-Routine: Everything unfamiliar simultaneously

Their redesign tackled each systematically:

1/ Reducing Time barriers:

• Split into three 3-minute modules

• Players could exit after any module

• Progress saved automatically

• Each module felt completable

  
  

2/ Reducing Brain Cycle barriers:

• Introduce one concept per module

• Let players practice immediately after learning

• No new information during practice sections

• Visual demonstrations before verbal explanations

  
  

3/ Reducing Non-Routine barriers:

• First module: only movement (familiar from any game)

• Second module: basic interaction (builds on movement)

• Third module: unique mechanics (builds on foundation)

• Each layer familiar before adding the novel

  
  

The information was identical. The teaching sequence was identical. But the ability profile was transformed.

The six ability factors as design checklist

For any behavior you want players to perform, audit the six factors:

1. Time: Can this be done quickly? If not, can it be broken into quick chunks?

2. Money: Is there financial friction? Can you remove or delay it?

3. Physical Effort: How many actions required? Can you reduce steps?

4. Brain Cycles: How much do players need to think? Can you simplify decisions?

5. Social Deviance: Does this feel weird or embarrassing? Can you normalize it?

6. Non-Routine: How unfamiliar is this? Can you make it feel familiar?

Example from the redesign:

Original: Tutorial required completing combat encounters before advancing (Physical Effort + Brain Cycles + Time)

Redesigned: Combat demo with godmode enabled, players can't die (Physical effort reduced, brain cycles reduced, time pressure removed). The goal wasn't to teach perfect combat. It was to make learning combat easy enough that players would engage. Mastery could come later.

Progressive complexity

The studio embraced a principle: never introduce two unfamiliar things simultaneously.

Original tutorial: New controls + new universe + new mechanics + new objectives all in first minutes.

Redesigned:

• Module 1: Movement in familiar-looking environment

• Module 2: Interaction with already-comfortable movement

• Module 3: Unique mechanics now that basics are second-nature

Each step felt manageable because only one element was new.

2. Designing for motivation

   
   

Once ability is maximized, design for the right motivators.

The studio realised something crucial: their tutorial was designed around the wrong motivators.

Identifying your motivators

Original tutorial relied on:

• Anticipation (Hope): "Learn this to succeed later"

• Sensation (Pain avoidance): "You'll struggle without this knowledge"

But players in the first 12 minutes don't have those motivators yet. They haven't played enough to fear failure or hope for mastery.

Redesigned tutorial leveraged:

• Sensation (Pleasure): "This feels immediately fun"

• Anticipation (Hope): "I can see myself getting better"

• Social (Acceptance): Hints that multiplayer would be rewarding with teamplay from opponents.

  
  

They matched motivators to where players actually were psychologically, not where designers imagined they'd be.

Elden Ring's motivator commitment

Elden Ring is instructive here. It commits entirely to Anticipation (Hope/Fear) motivation.

What it does:

• Gives you space to explore (Hope: "What's over there?")

• Creates real stakes with death (Fear: "Don't lose your runes")

• Provides clear progress through challenge (Hope: "I'm getting better")

What it explicitly doesn't do:

• Leaderboards or social comparison (Social)

• Explicit story-gating (forced Sensation/Pain)

• Time pressure or FOMO mechanics

The consistency matters. Mixing incompatible motivators dilutes both.

Design principle: Commit to your motivators

Identify your 1-2 primary motivators. Then:

1. Amplify them systematically across all systems

2. Remove systems that undermine them

3. Never mix incompatible motivators

The studio's redesigned tutorial:

• Amplified Pleasure: Made movement feel immediately good

• Amplified Hope: Showed visible improvement quickly

• Removed Fear: Eliminated fail states in early learning

• Added Social hints: Showed multiplayer possibilities

Each decision reinforced the chosen motivators.

3. Designing prompts

With ability maximized and motivation aligned, prompts can be precise and effective.

The studio's prompt redesign was subtle but crucial.

Matching prompt type to situation

Remember the three types:

• Spark: Low motivation, high ability

• Facilitator: High motivation, low ability

• Signal: High motivation, high ability

  
  

Original tutorial used facilitators everywhere: "Press X to jump, press Y to attack"

But players had high motivation and the redesign gave them high ability (simple, progressive). They didn't need facilitators.

Redesigned tutorial used signals: Visual cues, contextual highlights, environmental prompts. The moment you could jump, a gap appeared. When you learned attack, an enemy approached.

Signals, not facilitators. Trust that motivated, capable players will act with gentle triggers.

Dark Souls bonfires as design lesson

Bonfires are perfectly designed prompts:

• Motivation: Already high (you're engaged)

• Ability: Already high (resting is simple)

• Prompt type: Signal (visual cue)

• Timing: Perfect (after challenges, when decision matters)

They don't interrupt. Don't explain. Don't pressure. Just signal at the exact right moment.

The redesigned tutorial adopted this: prompts appeared exactly when relevant, never before, never intrusively.

Timing prompts correctly

The original tutorial prompted constantly: "Now do this" "Next, try this"

The redesign prompted only when:

1. Player demonstrated readiness (finished practice)

2. Context made next step obvious (environmental design)

3. Player curiosity was likely high (after success)

Result: Players felt in control, not directed. Same information communicated, different psychological experience.

4. Prompt need strategy

   
   

During redesign, the studio used a simple rating strategy: identify behaviors where both motivation and ability are naturally high, then focus your design there.

high (High Motivation + High Ability):

• Moving around the environment

• Basic interaction (pressing buttons)

• Immediate positive feedback

These behaviors need only simple signals. They'll happen naturally.

Mid (High Motivation + Medium Ability):

• Learning combat timing

• Understanding resource management

These need ability optimization and facilitator prompts.

Low (Low Motivation + Low Ability):

• Reading extensive lore

• Mastering advanced techniques in tutorial

These might not belong in early experience at all.

The redesign focused 80% of time on green dots, introduced yellow gradually, saved red for later.

Case Study: RPG onboarding

High:

• Using healing items (motivated by survival, mechanically simple)

• Basic movement and interaction

• Simple combat

Mid:

• Crafting systems (motivated but complex)

• Skill tree choices (motivated but overwhelming)

Low:

• Proactive buff usage (requires planning)

• Advanced deck building systems (high complexity, delayed payoff)

Design the tutorial to establish highs, introduce Mids progressively, and accept that Low behaviors come later for engaged players only.

5. Where this leads

B=MAP enables,not just fixing what's broken, but building right from the start.

The next time you're designing a feature, onboarding, retention mechanic, or monetization:

Design with B=MAP:

1. Maximize ability first - Remove every possible barrier

2. Align motivation - Match motivators to player state

3. Prompt precisely - Right type, right time, right intensity

4. 
   

Get all three right, and behavior happens naturally. Miss any one, and your brilliant design sits unused.

The framework is simple but Brilliant. The impact on the game design is profound.