Seven votes. Four orientations. Zero right or wrong answers. Here is how the group distributed itself: Two people start with the self. One person starts with the story. One person starts with the performance. Three people start with the situation. That alone already tells us something important: Not about quality but about focus. What became very visible in the comments is that people are not arguing about what matters. They are revealing where their attention naturally goes first when they think about development, growth, or change. 1. Those who start with the self look inward first. Identity, traits, consciousness, roles, meaning. The assumption here is that understanding who I am precedes any sustainable change. Systems come after clarity. 2. Those who start with the story look at how meaning is constructed. How performance and self get interpreted, narrated, justified, and sold to others and to oneself. Change begins by reshaping the narrative that holds everything together. 3. Those who start with performance focus on output, standards, practice, and improvement. What must get better? What can be trained? What excellence actually looks like in behavior, not in intention. 4. And those who start with the situation look at context. Constraints. Feedback loops. Resources. Pressure. Roles. Real-life conditions. The belief here is that behavior is shaped less by intention and more by the environment people are placed into. I (for example) voted for the situation. Not because the self is not important. Not because story or performance is secondary. But, from my POV in practice, context decides what is even possible to do and how humans are 'framed'. @Bernardo Letayf, my community co-founder (and whose work I really admire), would start with performance. That difference is not a conflict. For you, as a community member, it actually is an asset. Because motivation design, engagement design, UX, learning design, and leadership design all quietly answer this question first, whether consciously or not: Where do you start?

Gamification was my personal starting point into the vast world of behavioral economics. I later gained a better understanding of many aspects of gamification after delving deeper into behavioral economics and behavioral psychology as a whole. Evolutionary biology and neuroscience have also shaped my view of gamification. What other topics interest you in this context, but outside the traditional industry of gamification?

--English version below — Ein Buch gemeinsam lesen, von den Erkenntnissen der anderen und vom Austausch profitieren. Das wollen @Teresa Moreno , Nina Kroner und ich einmal ausprobieren mit Roman Rackwitz’s Buch „Drive Method - How to make engagement survive when rewards stop“. In unserem Buchclub sind noch einige Plätze frei, wer dabei sein möchte. Zwei Highlights: 1. Die/der erste, der hierunter kommentiert mit „Ich will dabei sein!“, bekommt von Roman das Buch geschenkt, um bei unserem Buchclub dabei zu sein. 1000 Dank, Roman 🙏 2. Roman ist beim Termin im April dabei und wir können ihn mit unseren Fragen löchern. Und das ist unser Fahrplan: - 13.02. von 12-13 Uhr: Kick-off & Getting to know - 24.02. von 12-13 Uhr: Discussion about Part 1 - 18.03. von 12-13 Uhr: Discussion about Part 2 - The Myth Section - 31.03. von 12-13 Uhr: Discussion about Part 2 - The Insight Section - 15.04. von 12-13 Uhr: Part 3 - 23.04. von 12-13.30 Uhr: Final session with Roman Rackwitz Wer ist dabei? Bitte meldet euch bis 31.01. hier auf diesen Beitrag mit einem Kommentar. —— Reading a book together, benefiting from each other's insights and exchanges. That's what Teresa Moreno, Nina Kroner and I want to try with Roman Rackwitz's book “Drive Method - How to make engagement survive when rewards stop.” There are still a few spots available in our book club for anyone who would like to join. 2 Highlights: - The first person who writes the comment “Yes, I want to be part of it” below this post will get for free a book from Roman to participate in our book club. Many thanks to Roman 🙏 - Roman will participate in our last Webcall in April where we can ask him all of our questions. And this is our schedule: - 13.02., 12-13: Kick-off & Getting to know - 24.02., 12-13: Discussion about Part 1 - 18.03., 12-13 : Discussion about Part 2 - The Myth Section - 31.03., 12-13: Discussion about Part 2 - The Insight Section - 15.04., 12-13: Part 3 - 23.04., 12-13.30: Final session with Roman Rackwitz

'How minds change' is a great book about the science behind beliefs, persuasion, and also learning. I think it has a lot to offer to improve the journey design in gamified learning approaches. Where Gamification could really show its strength in learning: "Unless grandly subverted, our models MUST FAIL A FEW TIMES before we begin to accomodate." This is what classic L&D is not taking into consideration. We can give it to them! What do you think?

I want to share the #gamemechanics I defined since I started my journey of #gamification design. Here is the Avatar > I don't define it as traditionally. I use it as an alter ego for the players to focus and try to become that. When you design a character, you may start playing it at level one but the "avatar" or the "representation" will be of something they want to become, hence, their alter-ego. This gives my players a goal. It works every time. Remember when we design, we have to think what we want the users to become after the journey.