Concept note · 2026 · Open access

The Ludic Framework

Published
Type
Concept note
Language
English

Abstract

The Ludic Framework is a game design framework that grew out of the MDA framework (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) to give game designers a wider range of action. It adds the ludics, interactions considered as signs at a more micro level than game mechanics, and turns the aesthetics into emotional goals that a designer can set for a game sequence. It is meant to help designers deal early with the complexity of designing with neural systems such as artificial agents.

Keywords: Ludic Framework, ludics, xenoludics, ludophrase, emergence buffer, aesthetic intent, MDA framework, game design

Definition

The Ludic Framework is a game design framework that originally took root in the MDA framework (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics), but desired to give the game designer a wider range of action. I added the concept of ludics, which are interactions considered as signs, at a more micro level than game mechanics. And the aesthetics, instead of being concepts like challenge (which I consider higher dynamics), became emotional goals that a game designer can set for a game sequence or for a ludophrase.

What my thesis adds to the Ludic Framework is a stronger emphasis on emergent mechanics and on what I already called the emergence buffer. It also introduces the xenoludics, which make it possible to take into account alien interactions as signs, coming for example from external intelligent agents.

Explanation

From macro to micro. The framework has three layers. The aesthetic layer is the emotional goal of the ludic sequence. The dynamics can be intentionally designed game mechanics or ludophrases, or non-intentional: a gameplay exploit, or a mechanic that players widely use but that was unintended. Then come the ludics, which can be intentionally designed or can be external, in which case we call them xenoludics.

The emergence buffer. A designer lays down parts, bits of code and behaviours that interact with one another in unexpected ways. The emergence buffer is the space of those unintended interactions. It may reinforce the intended aesthetics, or contradict them. The framework asks the designer to stay conscious of it from the start.

What it is for. I intend it as an approach to deal early with the complexity of designing with complex neural systems such as artificial agents. It helps the designer focus on the aesthetic intent and on the parts that can lead the player there, rather than on crafting a monolithic experience.

What it is not. It can be used as a game analysis framework, but it is intended for game designers first. It is not as ready-made for pre-existing patterns as the MDA framework, but I am open to people developing something on top of it.

The ludics. The ludics, interactions considered as signs, have their own note: Ludics. It includes the thesis’s taxonomy of the ludics, built with Peirce’s categories.

Example

On a project at work that uses several agents, I used it as the main design framework. It helped the game designers focus more on the aesthetic intent, and on the parts that can lead the player there, than on creating a carefully crafted monolithic experience. It helps a lot when the parts of your game have a will of their own.

Diagrams

Four figures from the thesis (chapter 5.4 and 5.5), redrawn here as text diagrams. The Mermaid source of each one is given at the end of this section, for reuse.

From hypothesis to composition Three steps from left to right: the aesthetic hypothesis (how do I want my players to feel?), the mechanic design (what systems would make them feel like that?), and the ludic composition (what are the minimal interactions required to make the mechanics possible?). Aesthetic hypothesis How do I wantmy players to feel? Mechanic design What systems wouldmake them feellike that? Ludic composition What are the minimalinteractions requiredto make the mechanicspossible?
Figure 1. From hypothesis to composition. The designer starts from the emotion they want to evoke, then asks which systems would produce it, then which minimal interactions (ludics) make those systems possible. After thesis Figure 29.
The Ludic Framework Ludics, singular interactions as signs, contain ludophrases, sequences or groups of ludics, which contain mechanics, the designed sub-systems. The emergence buffer lies between these and the aesthetics, the affective state experienced by the player, for example fear, pride, joy or shame. Experience flows from ludics toward aesthetics; design flows from aesthetics back toward the ludics. LudicsSingularinteractionsas signs LudophrasesSequence orgroup of ludics MechanicsDesignedsub-systems Emergencebuffer Aesthetics Affective stateexperienced by theplayer while playing(e.g. fear, pride,joy, shame) Experience Design
Figure 2. The Ludic Framework. The player experiences ludics, ludophrases and mechanics and may reach the intended aesthetics; the designer works the other way, from the emotional goal back to the ludics. The emergence buffer lies in between: unintended interactions that can reinforce or ruin the design intent. After thesis Figure 30.
The Ludic Framework’s model of interactivity An agent has an intent. The game contains an interpretation layer, where ludics and dynamics inform each other, and a game state. The agent’s intent acts through the ludics; the interpretation layer updates the game state; the game state feeds back to the agent’s intent. The same loop holds for a human player and for an artificial agent. Agent Agent’sintent Game Interpretation layer Ludics Dynamics Game state
Figure 3. The Ludic Framework’s model of interactivity. An agent, human or artificial, acts on the game through the ludics; the interpretation layer (ludics and dynamics) updates the game state; the state feeds back into the agent’s intent. The game state can use the agent’s actions (actums) to predict the agent’s intent, much as the agent reads the game’s intent from its factums. After thesis Figure 31.
Integrating the xenoludics Ludics and xenoludics, the latter coming from outside the designed game, both feed the intended mechanics and the emergent mechanics. The intended mechanics lead to the aesthetic intent and can also produce emergent aesthetics. The emergent mechanics lead to the emergent aesthetics. The designer asks whether the aesthetic intent and the emergent aesthetics are compatible. Ludics + xenoludics Intendedmechanics Emergentmechanics Aestheticintent Emergentaesthetics Compatible?
Figure 4. Integrating the xenoludics. Ludics and xenoludics (interactions that come from outside the designed game, for example from external intelligent agents) feed both the intended mechanics and the emergent mechanics. The designer’s question is whether the aesthetic intent and the emergent aesthetics are compatible. After thesis Figure 32.
Mermaid source of the four diagrams
%% Figure 1: from hypothesis to composition
flowchart LR
  A["Aesthetic hypothesis<br/>How do I want my players to feel?"] --> M["Mechanic design<br/>What systems would make them feel like that?"]
  M --> L["Ludic composition<br/>What are the minimal interactions required to make the mechanics possible?"]

%% Figure 2: the Ludic Framework
flowchart LR
  subgraph Ludics["Ludics: singular interactions as signs"]
    subgraph Ludophrases["Ludophrases: sequence or group of ludics"]
      Mechanics["Mechanics: designed sub-systems"]
    end
  end
  Buffer{{"Emergence buffer"}}
  Aesthetics["Aesthetics: affective state experienced by the player<br/>(e.g. fear, pride, joy, shame)"]
  Ludics -- Experience --> Buffer --> Aesthetics
  Aesthetics -. Design .-> Buffer -.-> Ludics

%% Figure 3: the model of interactivity
flowchart TB
  subgraph Agent
    Intent["Agent's intent"]
  end
  subgraph Game
    subgraph Interp["Interpretation layer"]
      Ludics2["Ludics"] <--> Dynamics["Dynamics"]
    end
    State["Game state"]
  end
  Intent --> Ludics2
  Interp --> State
  State --> Intent

%% Figure 4: integrating the xenoludics
flowchart LR
  L["Ludics"] --> IM["Intended mechanics"]
  X["Xenoludics (external)"] --> IM
  L --> EM["Emergent mechanics"]
  X --> EM
  IM --> AI["Aesthetic intent"]
  IM --> EA["Emergent aesthetics"]
  EM --> EA
  AI <-. "Compatible?" .-> EA

See also

Cite this

APA 7

Seraphine, F. (2026). The Ludic Framework [Concept note]. https://www.fredericseraphine.com/publications/ludic-framework-concept/

Primary source

Seraphine, F. (2025). Emergent Languages: Game Design for Communication with Artificial Agents [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tokyo]. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25637.67046

Publication page

Secondary source

Seraphine, F. (2017). The Ludic Framework: A Theory of Meaningful Gameplay. In Digital Games Research Association JAPAN Proceedings of 2016 Annual Conference. https://www.fredericseraphine.com/publications/ludic-framework/

Publication page

Secondary source

Seraphine, F. (2025). On Neuro-Game Design: A Connectionist Paradigm Shift. In Interactive Storytelling: ICIDS 2025 (pp. 54-69). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-12408-1_4

Publication page

BibTeX
@misc{seraphine2026the,
  author = {Seraphine, Frederic},
  title = {The Ludic Framework},
  note = {Concept note},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://www.fredericseraphine.com/publications/ludic-framework-concept/},
  language = {en},
  keywords = {Ludic Framework, ludics, xenoludics, ludophrase, emergence buffer, aesthetic intent, MDA framework, game design}
}