David Mamet is one of the most significant voices in American theater and film of the last fifty years. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Glengarry Glen Ross, was nominated for an Academy Award for The Verdict, and wrote the screenplays for The Untouchables and Wag the Dog, among many others. His writing has a distinctive quality that spawned the term Mamet-speak — sharp, staccato dialogue that cuts to the bone of what characters want and what they’re afraid to say. He has also spent decades teaching writing, and the gap between his work as a writer and his work as a teacher is almost nonexistent. He writes the way he thinks, and he thinks about writing constantly.
In 2005, while serving as showrunner on the CBS show The Unit, Mamet wrote a memo to his writing staff. It surfaced publicly in 2010 and has been circulating in creative communities ever since. It is approximately 1,100 words, written entirely in capital letters, occasionally profane, and one of the sharpest documents about dramatic writing I have ever read. You can read the original here.
The memo is addressed to television writers. It’s about drama — specifically about what drama is, what destroys it, and whose job it is to protect it. But when reading it — like everything else — I kept thinking about game development. The problems Mamet is describing are creative challenges. And game development — or specifically in my interpretation game design — can be viewed as having similar ones.
So I tried to translate it. Not adapt it, not summarize it — translate it into the language and context of game design. I kept the structure, kept the all-caps, kept the spirit. I changed what needed to change. What follows is inspired by Mamet’s memo and is my attempt to write a version I wish someone had handed me earlier in my career.
If you haven’t read the original, I’d encourage you to do that first. Then come back here.
TO THE DESIGNERS OF [YOUR GAME]
GREETINGS.
AS WE LEARN HOW TO DESIGN THIS GAME, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.
THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN EXPERIENCE AND NON-EXPERIENCE. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.
EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO SURPRISE AND DELIGHT. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, MAKING SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE THE LAST THING THAT MADE MONEY, OR THE THING THIS GAME IS SUPPOSED TO STEAL ITS AUDIENCE FROM, OR THE THING THAT, IF YOU SQUINT HARD ENOUGH AT BOTH OF THEM, SEEMS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO GREEN LIGHT MAKING THIS ONE.
OUR FRIENDS. THE SEAGULLS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO DELIVER CONTENT — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.
BUT NOTE: THE PLAYER WILL NOT BOOT UP YOUR GAME TO CONSUME CONTENT. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE PLAYER WILL ONLY BOOT UP AND KEEP PLAYING TO HAVE AN EXPERIENCE.
QUESTION: WHAT IS AN EXPERIENCE? AN EXPERIENCE, AGAIN, IS THE STATE IN WHICH THE PLAYER IS COMPELLED — BY FEELING, BY CHOICE, BY CONSEQUENCE — TO KEEP PLAYING. ONE MORE ROUND. ONE MORE QUEST. ONE MORE SESSION. THE PLAYER WHO CANNOT STOP IS THE PLAYER WHO IS HAVING AN EXPERIENCE.
SO: WE, THE DESIGNERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY ENCOUNTER THESE THREE QUESTIONS.
1) WHAT AM I DOING HERE?
2) WHERE AM I GOING NEXT?
3) HOW DO I GET THERE?
THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE ENCOUNTER IS AN EXPERIENCE OR NOT. IF A PLAYER CANNOT ANSWER ALL THREE EASILY AND AT ANY MOMENT — THE DESIGN MUST BE REVISITED.
IF THE ENCOUNTER IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE AN EXPERIENCE, IT WILL NOT BE PLAYED AS ONE.
THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY FUNCTIONAL ENCOUNTER INTO AN EXPERIENCE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR DESIGN DOCUMENT. YOU, THE DESIGNERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE EVERY ENCOUNTER IS AN EXPERIENCE.
THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” ENCOUNTERS WHERE THE PLAYER IS SIMPLY FOLLOWING A DOT ON A MAP TO THEIR NEXT OBJECTIVE. THIS BUSHWAH — AND WE ALL TEND TO DESIGN IT IN THE FIRST PASS — IS LESS THAN USELESS SHOULD IT, GOD FORBID, MAKE IT INTO THE SHIPPED GAME.
IF THE ENCOUNTER BORES YOU WHEN YOU PLAY IT, REST ASSURED IT WILL BORE THE TESTER, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE PLAYER, AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.
SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE ENCOUNTER AN EXPERIENCE. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF AUDIO, ANIMATION, ART, VFX, OR UI. THEIR JOB IS TO EXECUTE YOUR VISION TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF THEIR CONSIDERABLE ABILITY. IT IS NOT THE PRODUCERS’ JOB. THEIR JOB IS TO GET THE THING MADE AND TO REMIND EVERYONE OF THE DEADLINE. IT IS YOUR JOB.
EVERY ENCOUNTER MUST BE AN EXPERIENCE. THAT MEANS: THE PLAYER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS THEM TO SHOW UP IN THE ENCOUNTER.
THIS NEED IS WHY THEY CAME. IT IS WHAT THE ENCOUNTER IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO SATISFY THIS NEED WILL LEAD, AT THE END OF THE ENCOUNTER, TO EITHER SUCCESS OR FAILURE — THIS IS HOW THE ENCOUNTER IS OVER. EITHER OUTCOME WILL, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL THE PLAYER INTO THE NEXT ENCOUNTER.
ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE GAME, CONSTITUTE THE EXPERIENCE.
ANY ENCOUNTER, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE EXPERIENCE AND STANDALONE — THAT IS, AS AN EXPERIENCE, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS — IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY DESIGNED.
YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF MAKING SURE THE GAME APPEALS TO AS MANY PLAYERS AS POSSIBLE?
AND I RESPOND “FIGURE IT OUT.” ANY SEAGULL CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “SURPRISE AND DELIGHT” AND “I WANT EVERY PLAYER TYPE TO FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO THIS WORLD.”
WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO BROADLY APPEALING THAT EVEN THE SEAGULL IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND THEY WILL BE OUT OF A JOB.
THE JOB OF THE DESIGNER IS TO MAKE THE PLAYER WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. NOT TO REASSURE THEM THAT THIS GAME IS LIKE SOMETHING THEY ALREADY KNOW. NOT TO SAND DOWN EVERY EDGE UNTIL NOTHING REMAINS THAT COULD POSSIBLY OFFEND OR CONFUSE OR CHALLENGE ANYONE.
A GAME MADE FOR EVERYONE IS A GAME MADE FOR NO ONE. IT HAS NO VOICE. IT HAS NO POINT OF VIEW. IT HAS NO REASON TO EXIST BEYOND THE QUARTERLY REPORT.
YES BUT, YES BUT, YES BUT YOU REITERATE.
AND I RESPOND FIGURE IT OUT.
HOW DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN GIVING THE PLAYER WHAT THEY NEED AND TRUSTING THEM TO FIND IT? THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DESIGNER. AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES CIRCLING OVERHEAD.
FIGURE IT OUT.
START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE ENCOUNTER MUST BE AN EXPERIENCE. IT MUST BEGIN BECAUSE THE PLAYER HAS A NEED, AND IT MUST END WITH THE PLAYER EITHER HAVING MET THAT NEED OR HAVING DISCOVERED A NEW WAY TO PURSUE IT.
LOOK AT YOUR DESIGN DOCUMENTS. ANY ENCOUNTER DESCRIBED AS “THE PLAYER MOVES THROUGH THE AREA TO REACH THE NEXT OBJECTIVE” IS NOT DESCRIBING AN EXPERIENCE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE EXPERIENCE LEAKS OUT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE DOCUMENT AND THE FIRST PLAYABLE BUILD. THIS IS WHERE YOUR JOB ACTUALLY BEGINS.
THINK LIKE A GAME DEVELOPER. NOT LIKE A FUNCTIONARY FILLING A ROLE. IN TRUTH, YOU ARE MAKING THE GAME. WHAT YOU DESIGN, THEY WILL BUILD. WHAT THEY BUILD, THE PLAYER WILL FEEL. OR THEY WON’T. AND THAT IS ON YOU.
HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS.
ANY TIME A CHARACTER TALKS TO THEMSELVES TO REMIND THE PLAYER WHAT TO DO NEXT — THE ENCOUNTER IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
ANY TIME YOU ARE EXPLAINING A MECHANIC TO DEATH SO THE PLAYER CANNOT POSSIBLY MISUNDERSTAND IT — THE ENCOUNTER IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
ANY TIME YOU ARE TELLING THE PLAYER SOMETHING IS IMPORTANT RATHER THAN MAKING THEM FEEL IT — THE ENCOUNTER IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
DO NOT DESIGN A CROCK OF SHIT. DESIGN AN ENCOUNTER SO COMPELLING, SO SPECIFIC, SO ENTIRELY ITSELF THAT THE PLAYER CANNOT PUT THE CONTROLLER DOWN — AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, MAKE THE GAME YOU ACTUALLY WANTED TO MAKE ALL ALONG.
REMEMBER YOU ARE DESIGNING FOR AN INTERACTIVE MEDIUM. MOST GAME DESIGN, OURS INCLUDED, TREATS THE PLAYER LIKE AN AUDIENCE. THE CHOICE CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. LET IT. WHAT IS THE PLAYER DOING — LITERALLY. WHAT ARE THEY DECIDING. WHAT ARE THEY RISKING. WHAT ARE THEY FEELING.
A GAME WITHOUT MEANINGFUL CHOICES IS BARELY A GAME. IT IS AN EXPERIENCE IN THE SAME WAY THAT WATCHING SOMEONE ELSE PLAY IS AN EXPERIENCE. WHICH IS TO SAY — IT IS NOT.
IF YOU PRETEND THERE ARE NO REWARDS — NO LOOT, NO XP, NO ACHIEVEMENT, NO DOPAMINE TICK — AND THE ENCOUNTER STILL COMPELS THE PLAYER TO KEEP PLAYING, YOU HAVE DESIGNED SOMETHING REAL.
IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF THE REWARD, YOU WILL BE FORCED TO WORK IN THE ACTUAL MEDIUM — DESIGNING CHOICES THAT MATTER, CONSEQUENCES THAT LAND, AND EXPERIENCES THAT THE PLAYER GENERATES THEMSELVES.
THIS IS A NEW SKILL FOR MANY. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT. BUT YOU NEED TO START.
I CLOSE WITH ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE ENCOUNTER AND ASK YOURSELF — IS IT AN EXPERIENCE? IS IT ESSENTIAL? DOES IT ADVANCE THE GAME?
ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.
IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” — DESIGN IT AGAIN. OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME.
LOVE, YOUR BIGGEST BELIEVER.
(IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ALWAYS HAVE THE ANSWERS. BUT IT IS YOURS, AND MINE, TO KNOW AND TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS — OVER AND OVER — UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)