This reflection stems from the narrative strategies employed by some mainstream games. In some experiences, you feel like an outsider helping NPCs; in others, you think that what the NPCs say and do, along with your exploration, is closely related to you. I believe these two experiences differentiate between the outsider and the insider. Interestingly, both experiences can occur within the same game, such as in the main storyline (unfolding as an insider) and side quests (unfolding as an outsider).

Game as perspective on cybermedia objects and processes is the game research model I primarily refer to. Below is my understanding of this model: it sets sign, materiality, and mechanics as the three critical dimensions determining a game. The player, situated at a high dimension, links all elements, forming a pyramid-like structure. Here, the sign represents the narrative and cultural layer, mechanics pertain to gameplay design, and materiality involves the immersion and realism of the experience. At the apex, the player receives feedback, putting the model in a state of continuous cyclical change.

This model can be effectively applied to understanding the design field, especially in integrating interactive mechanisms in critical and speculative design/design fiction. In my view, the essence of materiality/immersion is what Joe refers to asworld-building. Therefore, whether it’s Julian emphasising reality and clarity or Joe discussing world-building, it becomes very easy to understand by bringing the concept of materiality into a game experience. This strong sense of materiality fosters a belief, driving players/viewers/participants to integrate better into the project and become part of it. Nowadays, the pursuit is materiality, which naturally leads to discussions about the impact of capital on individuals. After all, capital excels at maximising materiality, such as the significant productions by internet and film companies affecting individual designers (such as the impact of “Black Mirror” on other speculative content). However, is the solution to this problem confrontational? From a gaming perspective, the existence and popularity of “Stardew Valley” might offer ways to address this issue. Materiality is not purely manifested through funding and technology; it has a deeper entanglement with signs. Works that rely purely on signs require extensive reading/viewing and comprehension. Therefore, adopting an insider’s first-person perspective can accelerate this process. At this moment, signs and materiality intersect. In some classic works of design fiction, when people hold a future handbook, the screen-based capital’s materiality advantage gradually collapses. This moment represents the fusion of participants’ material experience and signs. In my view, creating this fusion experience is the strength of designers. There is a willingness and initiative to enter communities and crowds, making simulations more convincing. Returning to the gaming perspective, designers, like DMs, have much to do when immersion is insufficient.

This brings us back to the initial question: outsider and insider. How can we make the experience of a speculative design/design fiction project closer to being an insider rather than an outsider (not criticising the outsider’s participation, but because an insider better emphasises the materiality needed to strengthen the narrative)? I believe the key is for participants to feel like they are creating a narrative for themselves or the characters they represent. This further theoretically supports Tobie’s emphasis that downstream participation is not just experience but also improving the design itself (similar to views mentioned in critical design curation). Two design theories emphasising participant creativity establish a clear connection through the entanglement of materiality and signs. This is a process of participating in constructing the narrative. In this process, insiders may begin to individualise the signs. I may no longer be a distant shepherd in Greek mythology but Zeus himself.

Additionally, the future product manual example illustrates the difference between design and other media. People can freely imagine and diverge. Unlike literature, film, and most video games, speculative design does not necessarily lead to single or multiple fixed endings. Although speculative design does not need to consider the complex conflict between participants and fixed narrative endings, this brings another issue: how to ensure participants create personalised narratives? The host/designer’s sufficient narrative guidance can enhance this experience. The two card games mentioned in the previous articles excel at this point, blurring the boundaries between insider and outsider.