Why Players Don't Do What You Want: The Fogg Behaviour Model (1/2)

Behaviour = Motivation × Ability × Prompt

The FTUE... So many studios are treating it as yet another level to develop or a demo. Something that have to be done, rather than embraced and be consciously crafted.

I recently worked with a studio that developped a very complete and exhaustive tutorial. Everything clearly explained in a 12 minutes level introducing the controls, the universe, the main protagonists and give some sense of purpose to the all game.

Internal testing, QA reports were all very positive, The tutorial was giving all the key information required.

First external playtest report with 20 external players. Less than half of them completed the tutorial...

Complete surprise from the core team. The team assumed there was something wrong and that they should improve the tutorial to make it more compelling. Add drama, add action, more opponent... But the analysis of the recording told another story. After about 8 minutes Player were skipping and those playing were not focused on the game. Their attention was drifting not because they didn't want to learn, but because they couldn't maintain focus for that long.

The tutorial wasn't confusing. It was too long. The barrier wasn't motivation or comprehension: it was ability. Specifically, the ability to sustain attention through 15 minutes of instruction.

This distinction comes from BJ Fogg's Behavior Model, and understanding it changes how you think about every player interaction in your game.

The B = MAP equation

Bruce Lee once said that "Simplicity is your key to brillance"; And Fogg's model is really simple :

Behaviour = Motivation × Ability × Prompt

For any behaviour to occur, three elements must be present simultaneously:

• Motivation: The person wants to do it

• Ability: The person can do it easily

• Prompt: Something triggers them to do it now

If any element is missing or insufficient, the behaviour doesn't happen.

And crucially: you can't compensate for missing one element by maximizing another. High motivation won't overcome impossible difficulty. Perfect timing won't matter if someone has zero motivation.

This simple analysis explains so much about why players do or don't engage with features, complete tutorials, return to your game, or make purchases.

1/ Motivation: What drives players to act

Fogg identifies three core motivators, each with two sides:

• Sensation: Pleasure vs Pain

• Anticipation: Hope vs Fear

• Social: Acceptance vs Rejection

Games naturally tap into all of these, but the best games know which motivators they're leveraging and design intentionally around them.

Elden Ring and the hope-fear dynamic

Elden Ring brilliantly uses anticipation as its primary motivator.

• Hope: "I can beat this boss. I'm getting closer. One more try."

• Fear: "If I don't recover my runes, I lose everything."

The game sustains this tension for dozens of hours. Each death reinforces both: you failed (fear) but you learned something (hope). The Souls bloodstain mechanic is pure anticipation motivation as you have one chance to recover your loss, creating intense focus.

However, Elden Ring doesn't rely on: social acceptance. The game is primarily solo. You're not motivated by impressing friends or avoiding social rejection. The motivation is internal (cf. SDT article), about your own persistence and growth.

This is why Elden Ring works for players who love challenge but might fail at competitive multiplayer games. Different motivators, different audience.

Roblox's Grow a garden and social motivations

Roblox experiences like Grow a Garden show how social motivators drive engagement differently than solo games.

Social acceptance: Playing alongside friends, showing off your garden, being part of the shared world

Pleasure: The satisfaction of watching things grow, decorating your space

Anticipation (Hope): "My garden will look amazing when these flowers bloom"

But the primary driver is social. Players aren't just growing gardens, they're creating spaces their friends can visit, comparing progress, participating in a shared activity.

At the opposite side, Grow a Garden minimizes competitive pressure. There's no leaderboard for "best garden." Success is personal and social, not comparative. This keeps the experience light and inclusive, maximizing social participation without creating social anxiety.

This is why these experiences succeed as social hangouts but might not retain solo players. They're designed for social belonging, not individual achievement.

2/ Ability: The simplicity factors

Motivation alone isn't enough. Players need to be able to do the behavior easily. Fogg identifies six factors that affect ability:

• Time: How long does it take?

• Money: What's the financial cost?

• Physical Effort: How much physical action is required?

• Brain Cycles: How much mental effort is needed?

• Social Deviance: How much does this violate social norms?

• Non-Routine: How unfamiliar is this behavior?

Each factor can be a barrier. Games succeed when they minimize barriers for their target behaviours.

Vampire Survivors and minimal brain cycles

Vampire Survivors succeeds partly because it minimizes cognitive load.

• Time: Sessions can be 5 minutes or 50 minutes (flexible)

• Physical Effort: WASD movement only, no complex inputs

• Brain Cycles: Auto-attack, simple choices, minimal strategy required

This makes the game extremely accessible and allow players to multitask while playing the game.

Compared to a typical MOBA for example :

Time: 40+ minute commitment minimum

Brain Cycles: Constant strategic decisions, map awareness, item builds

Physical Effort: Complex inputs, precise timing required

They are targeting players who want high engagement. Vampire Survivors targets players who want ambient engagement.

The tutorial problem through ability lens

Back to that 15-minute tutorial: the motivation was there. The prompt was there.

But ability failed.

The ability barriers:

Time: 15 minutes is long for a tutorial

Brain Cycles: Continuous learning without breaks depletes mental energy

Non-Routine: New information requires more cognitive effort

The solution wasn't increasing motivation ("make the tutorial more exciting!") or better prompts ("add more hints!"). It was reducing ability barriers:

1. Break tutorial into 5-minute chunks

2. Allow saving and resuming

3. Integrate tutorials into gameplay (reduce brain cycles)

4. Let players practice before introducing new concepts

New playtest, completion rate jumped to 17/20.

Same content, better ability.

3/ Prompts: The trigger at the right moment

Even with motivation and ability, behavior doesn't happen without a prompt. But not all prompts are equal. Fogg identifies three types:

• Spark: For when motivation is low (increase motivation)

• Facilitator: For when ability is low (make it easier)

• Signal: For when both motivation and ability are high (simple reminder)

Using the wrong type of prompt fails. A spark when someone lacks ability doesn't work. A facilitator when someone lacks motivation doesn't work.

Dark Souls bonfires as signals

Dark Souls - Bonfire

Dark Souls bonfires are brilliant signal prompts.

Motivation: High (you're engaged in exploration/combat)

Ability: High (you can rest anytime you find one)

Prompt: Visual signal of safety and checkpoint

The bonfire doesn't increase motivation or reduce difficulty. It simply signals: "You can save here." For motivated, capable players, that's all you need.

This is why bonfires are so satisfying. They appear at exactly the moment you need the signal, after difficult sections, creating relief and accomplishment simultaneously.

Common patterns

After hundreds of diagnostics, patterns emerge:

"Too difficult" often means:

• Unclear feedback (ability: brain cycles)

• NOT actual difficulty

"Need more content" often means:

• Unclear progression (ability: understanding)

• NOT insufficient volume

"Confusing UI" often means:

• Information overload (ability: brain cycles)

• NOT bad visual design

  
  

Where this leads us

When players aren't doing something expected, ask systematically:

1. Do they want to? (Motivation)

2. Can they easily? (Ability) Which of the 6 factors?

3. Are they triggered right? (Prompt) Right type, right time?

   
   

Most teams assume motivation problems.

But often it's ability; Buried in menus, requires prerequisites, takes too long, demands too much cognitive effort.

Fix ability, and "unmotivated" players engage.

The next time players aren't behaving as expected, don't assume why.

Diagnose systematically: Which element is missing?

Because behavior isn't just desire. It's desire + capability + trigger, all at once.

Miss any element, and the behavior won't happen.

But diagnose correctly, and you know exactly what to fix.

And that's what the next article will cover: once you've diagnosed the problem, how do you design the solution?