Core term - linguistically invariant
Human Agent Habitus
What it is about
Human Agent Habitus comprises the relatively durable but not rigid patterns of thought, perception and behaviour that a person has internalised through their social origin and environment - above all in childhood and youth (Bourdieu). In LUNA what counts of it is what shapes play: how the person approaches games, what they perceive in them and what they value - whether they prefer to cooperate or compete, explore or optimise, dare or play safe, how much rule density and how much time they want, how they stand towards rules and which design speaks to them.
It is separate from what the person can do (Human Agent Capacitas), why they play (Human Agent Motivation) and what they experience (Ludic Experience). It is dimensional, not typological: nobody “is” a type; every person lies on spectra. Because it is not rigid, it shifts - slowly, through play experience, new groups, reflection.
Place and design access
Place on the axis: AGENT - what the person brings; it precedes the process and changes slowly, through play, new groups, reflection.
Design access: addressable - agents are addressable, not controllable; what can be regulated is their action space, not how they tend to play. A game can allow and address different styles, but it cannot produce a habitus. Design should not serve one habitus but open a space in which different styles have room.
Relations on the axis:
- AGENT–CORPUS: it is delimited against Ludic Sovereignty: inclination against authority.
- CORPUS: it informs which Ludic Activities a person chooses and which Ludic Appearance speaks to them, and it limits how much Ludic Regulation they accept - a rule someone will not accept does not take hold in them.
- AGENT: Human Agent Capacitas spans the space in which it takes shape: what someone can do limits how they can tend to play. With Human Agent Motivation it often correlates, but not necessarily.
- AGENT–PROCESS: it contributes to the Ludic Experience - it makes certain qualities of experience more likely but does not fix them. From the Ludic Effectus it receives feedback: whoever has good experiences in cooperative play may shift their social orientation. It is delimited against the Ludic Agent Situation.
- INTENT: the addressed agents are described also by their expected inclinations; the Ludic Desiderata hold for them.
Delimitations
Delimitation from Human Agent Capacitas
Against Human Agent Capacitas: custom and ability. Capacitas says what a person could do, habitus how they tend to play. Someone who can calculate quickly does not therefore necessarily play calculatingly. What someone can do limits the range of their habitus but does not determine it.
Delimitation from Human Agent Motivation
Against Human Agent Motivation: how and why. Habitus says how someone plays, motivation why. The two often correspond - whoever seeks competition often plays riskily and competitively -, but not necessarily: whoever seeks the same challenge can approach it alone, cautiously and optimisingly.
Delimitation from Ludic Sovereignty
Against Ludic Sovereignty: inclination and authority. Sovereignty says how much an agent may change; the authority stance of their habitus, how they deal with rules - rule-abiding to rule-creative. Whoever has full sovereignty and is rule-abiding rarely changes anything; whoever is rule-creative and has none, clashes.
Delimitation from Ludic Agent Situation
Against Ludic Agent Situation: what someone wants and what they find. How much time a person wants to put into a game is habitus; how much they have - the ride on the bus, the evening before the early shift - is the situation. The tension between the two is a design concern of its own: interruptibility, short matches that add up to something long.
Examples
One game, three styles. In the same world of Minecraft one player explores caves as far as possible (exploratory, risk-seeking); another builds a farm that yields as much as possible for as little effort as possible (optimising, risk-averse); the third raises a castle because she likes it (aesthetically oriented, with much time). The same game serves all three because it leaves room for all three.
Further games:
- Dark Souls: attracts players who seek risk and want to invest much time; whoever looks for short matches finds little here.
- Twilight Imperium versus Uno: the inclination towards rule density and long evenings - independent of whether one could understand forty pages of rules.
- House rules: at the same table one sticks strictly to the rulebook, another invents a variant at every opportunity - the authority stance.
- Speedrun: the optimising inclination taken to the extreme - the same route a thousand times to gain seconds.
- Stardew Valley and Doom: two aesthetic orientations, warm and leisurely against loud and hard.
Explanation
Every person has their own play style - habits, preferences, taste, grown over years: from origin and environment, from the games of childhood, from the groups one plays with. That is Human Agent Habitus: not what someone can do and not why someone plays, but how someone approaches games and what appeals to them.
Think of a world in Minecraft: one explores caves, another builds the most efficient farm, the third a castle because it is beautiful. All three play the same game, and all three find in it what they are looking for.
Good design gives everyone room and meets their taste - a game that is functionally perfect but misses its players’ visual language loses them at first sight. And habitus is not a label: nobody “is a type”, everyone moves on spectra, and habitus can change. Do not design for one habitus, but open a space in which different styles have room.
Usage context
| Dimension | Classification |
|---|---|
| Phase | Ideation (primary: which range of styles, which group dynamics, which visual language - in the agent persona); development (does the prototype allow different styles or only one?); evaluation (which styles show in playtesting?) |
| Tool type | generative and structuring - seven cards of the subdimensions (HAB-01 to HAB-07) and the guide card HAB-META-01 (“Player Types Are Myths”) in the stack stacks/agent/human/habitus/; reference: tabulae/worksheet/agent-persona-worksheet.md |
Theoretical foundation
- Bourdieu, Distinction (1979): habitus as relatively durable, not rigid patterns of thought, perception and behaviour, internalised through social origin and environment, with taste (goût). LUNA takes what of it shapes play, and with aesthetic orientation taste as well.
- Typologies of players - Bartle (1996), Yee, Marczewski (Hexad), Quantic Foundry: the foil. LUNA sets spectra instead of fixed types, general instead of genre-specific, without judgemental labels.
- Personality psychology, Big Five: loose connections - risk appetite and neuroticism, exploration and openness, social orientation and extraversion, authority stance and conscientiousness. They make the model plausible without turning it into a personality test.
- Dewey; Hunicke, LeBlanc, Zubek, “MDA”: taste and aesthetics. LUNA separates aesthetic orientation (habitus), aesthetic capacity (capacitas) and aesthetic experience (experience).
Subdimensions
| Subdimension | Guiding question | Spectrum |
|---|---|---|
| Social orientation (HAB-01) | How does the person relate to others? | cooperative - competitive - alone |
| Exploration (HAB-02) | How do they deal with the possibility space? | exploring - optimising |
| Risk appetite (HAB-03) | How do they deal with uncertainty? | risk-seeking - risk-averse |
| Rule density (HAB-04) | How much rules and decision depth do they want? | simple - complex |
| Time investment (HAB-05) | How much time do they want to invest? | short - long and intense |
| Authority stance (HAB-06) | How do they stand towards rules? | rule-abiding - rule-creative |
| Aesthetic orientation (HAB-07) | Which design speaks to them? | facets: visual, auditory, haptic, tone, aesthetic complexity |
The first six concern behaviour in play, the seventh perception and taste: which appearance speaks to someone. The haptic facet concerns material and weight - wood against cardboard, heavy dice, the rumble of the controller; it counts above all at the table and in movement games. No closed taxonomy and no label: every person moves on all seven spectra and can shift.
Social orientation is the person’s inclination; which constellation a game sets is determined by the Ludic Social Structure. Whether the two fit - the cooperative player in the traitor’s role - is a question of design.