Do games really improve engagement?
Saturday, March 23 is the penultimate Bristol Urban Forum! (see details here) Here are some things we learned from playing Snakes and Ladders at February’s forum.
A year ago, we joined forces with placemaker, Ben Stephenson, to hold a series of public conversations about our home city. Through the Bristol Urban Forum we’re addressing urgent issues facing our city while innovating our play-based approaches.
Last month we explored Inequality; a particularly sticky challenge for Bristol. We used a brilliant set of inter-connecting parts, designed by the folks at KitCamp (and thanks to #NickOurWorld, UK Community Fund, and ChangeX) to construct a human-scale Snakes and Ladders board. We laid it out in a busy, indoor thoroughfare at Sparks (the site of a former M+S, now a mixed-use community space in a shopping centre), gathered a crowd of willing volunteers and asked “How do we play Inequality Snakes and Ladders”? None of us knew how the game would go before we started— the players would fill in the details.

Using games and play-able experiences is a pretty hot trend within civic, academic and policy spaces, with a promise of improving public engagement, but they can get overcomplicated with rules that detract focus away from the issues at hand. Our experience at the Forum demonstrated for us the advantages and disadvantages of gamification. First, the advantages:
- Games show rather than tell. Within the Forum sessions, a lot of information is exchanged, and without the use of any power point presentations! In the forum, we incorporated sound/music, visual, physical and experiential stimuli and creative expression, all of which offer opportunities for exchanging information and experience across learning styles, cultural differences and ages.
- Games expose power. Often people’s concern about power and authority is not that people have it, but a lack of transparency about how it is used. In a game, roles and rules are clearly laid out. In delivering Snakes and Ladders, we were accompanied by Alexandra Lindsay, a Bristol-based songstress and ‘World Change Consultant’, who suggested the rule ‘take 3 extra steps to win, or share them out with the other players….’, prompting personal stories about privilege, power, injustice and nepotism from players. Valuable talking points like these, arising from play, helped us to frame a more formal, post-game discussion.
- Games are novel. It is not everyday that you walk through your shopping centre and come across a huge playing board covered in snakes and ladders. Novelty is associated with the release of dopamine which activates feelings of pleasure and motivation. It also makes something more memorable and engages the imagination.
But gamification also has drawbacks.
- Games are not for me? Even the words ‘interactive games’ can bring to mind adrenaline, extroversion, youth and able-bodied-ness, associations that might put some people off. We need to consider all who might be present and may want to be involved. Informed by our experience as street performers and facilitators, friendliness, porosity and agency are at the core of everything we design. People encountering Inequality Snakes and Ladders had choice at all stages. As hosts, we helped people to feel seen and welcome. They could come close and join in, watch from the sidelines, stand back and observe or walk on by. All of these levels of engagement have value. As a result, not all involved were young, able-bodied and extrovert, but a diverse range of people who might not otherwise exchange views about the city.
- Games are not thorough problem solvers. While they are great at getting people involved and sharing information, we use other skills and layers of engagement to ensure that what is learned and raised through play can be channeled into solutions and action. Our newsletter and website will continue to share about these and related topics.
There are two more sessions left of the Forum. If you live in Bristol, or are simply curious, please do come along. We’d love to meet you. |