Your Profile Code

CDM

World Architect

Surface Labels

Context / lore Meaningful rules World-rule linkage Immersion structure Consistency
CDM character

World Architect

A game should be a coherent world where player choices produce outcomes that make sense in-context.

Core Traits

CDM sees a game as a "world where rules operate". They care less about what the system does, and more about why it should be that way (context) and how the outcome is interpreted inside the world (meaning).
The same combat, economy, or progression can change completely once worldbuilding and language are attached: player choices shift from "functions" to "actions". CDM designs that transformation.
In short, CDM builds dense setting and context, while letting players create their own paths through exploration and choice.

CDM assumes rules don't become fun just by functioning; they become sticky through interpretation. Like framing effects in cognitive psychology, the same choice can produce totally different emotion and responsibility depending on context and language.
So CDM designs the seam where system explanation, terminology, and lore shape what players think their actions mean.

In practice, CDM uses lore not as mere text, but as a design tool. They rewrite rule exceptions as the world's laws so the team can reason about them, and they keep the system from accidentally sending the wrong message.
Teams with CDM can feel alive even with fewer features, and players can often explain what the game is really about.

profile values banner

Core Values

North Star

A game should be a coherent world where player choices produce outcomes that make sense in-context.

Situational Behavior

  • When requirements are vague, you clarify the world premise and motivations first, then suggest system expressions that fit that premise.
  • In technical trade-offs, you may cut features to protect consistency; mismatched framing breaks immersion faster than missing content.
  • Under schedule pressure, you keep the world’s backbone and simplify surface content so the experience still feels believable.
  • When feedback conflicts, you focus on how players interpret the system; the same rule can feel different depending on framing.

Operational Style

  • You balance alongside meaning: numbers can be correct yet still damage long-term trust if the world logic collapses.
  • You iterate with a shared language (lore bible, terminology, system descriptions) so teams stay aligned as content grows.
  • In live ops, you treat world expansion as motivation expansion, while managing lore debt so updates don’t contradict themselves.
  • Your release gate is clarity of meaning: if UI/tutorial/dialogue misrepresents the system, players will distrust even good mechanics.
profile strengths banner

Strengths

  • Attach meaning to systems. You help players understand and accept rules, strengthening long-term immersion and identity.
  • Help cross-discipline communication. You give designers/engineers/art a shared world language, speeding decisions.
  • Shines in: Pre-production, building the pillars of world/economy/growth, content pipeline setup, and world expansion design for expansions/seasons.

Trade-offs

  • Lore debt can pile up. Meaning-making work can expand endlessly, so scope management is crucial.
  • Over-obsessing coherence can slow momentum. Trying to make everything explainable can dull exploration and experimentation.

Team Chemistry

Needs Alignment: Data Pilot (SET)

Data Pilot (SET) tends to prioritize the opposite direction, so friction appears early unless goals, success criteria, and decision order are aligned first.

Representative Games

ELDEN RING

ELDEN RING

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Red Dead Redemption 2

Red Dead Redemption 2

Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special Edition

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special Edition

Cyberpunk 2077

Cyberpunk 2077

References

Work Link
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. https://aaai.org/papers/ws04-04-001-mda-a-formal-approach-to-game-design-and-game-research/
Juul, J. (2002). The Open and the Closed: Games of Emergence and Games of Progression. https://www.jesperjuul.net/text/openandtheclosed.html
Juul (DiGRA DOI record) https://dl.digra.org/index.php/dl/article/view/214
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972
Denisova, A., et al. (2024). Towards Democratisation of Games User Research. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677108
Isbister, K., & Hodent, C. (Eds.). (2018). Game Usability: Advice from the Experts for Advancing UX Strategy and Practice in Videogames. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/game-usability-9780198794844