“Game mechanics” is a frequently referenced yet contested term in game studies. There have been some efforts to define it, of which perhaps the most widely known is Sicart's definition of game mechanics as “methods invoked by agents interacting with the game world.” The term has been explored variously for its tangled relationship to game rules, game narrative, or the player's ability to complete game tasks that involve a non-trivial amount of manual dexterity, among others. Despite its ubiquitous usage, the question of what exactly is a game mechanic persists. Yet rather than attempt to re-define it, this paper proposes that the term has overstayed its welcome and is not productive in the study of games in its current form. Each of the contributing authors offers a position statement in support of this proposal. The concluding discussion establishes the categorial nature of game mechanics and offers some potential solutions for moving beyond it. © 2026 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).

This paper analyzes materials related to educational programmes from universities that differ significantly with regards to the percentage of women studying computing. To understand this difference better, we compare two extreme cases: the educational programme with the highest percentage of women (22%) versus the one with the lowest percentage (7%) in Denmark. Following the literature showing that there exists a correlation between gender and interest in topics distributed on the ¶EOPLE --ÞINGS spectrum, we check to what extent the promotional materials and course composition can be associated more with ¶EOPLE or rather with ÞINGS. Based on data from N=150 students who rated graphic and textual promotional materials and courses on the ¶EOPLE vs ÞINGS scale, we establish the following correlation: the programme with more women appear to be oriented significantly more towards ¶EOPLE (and less towards ÞINGS ) than the programme with less women. We hypothesize that this offers a tool to "adjust'' the gender appeal of computing educational programmes with regards to both recruitment and retention.

There is a strong need for a more equal gender balance within the computing field. In 1998, Richard A. Lippa [29] uncovered a relationship between gender and preference within the People–Things spectrum, with women preferring People-oriented activities to a higher degree than men. The aim of this paper is twofold. First of all, we wish to determine if a similar relation can be established in the particular context of computing educational activities. Second of all, we wish to see if Lippa’s findings can be extrapolated to contemporary high-school students. To do that, we designed and conducted an experiment involving around 500 Danish high-school students who have been asked to choose between a People-themed version vs an isomorphic Things-themed version of four activities representative for computing education. The results show that the odds of a woman preferring a task involving People is 2.7 times higher than those of a man. The odds of a student without prior programming experience preferring a task involving People is 1.4 times higher than those of a student with programming experience. If we compare women without programming experience to men with programming experience the effect is even more pronounced; indeed, the combined effect is 3.8 (2.7 × 1.4). Our study implies a recommendation for computing educators to, whenever possible, favor educational activities involving People over Things. This makes educational activities appeal more to female students (and to students without programming experience), while not making a difference for male students (or students with programming experience). Since the experiment measured only the appeal of tasks (the users were not expected to perform them) the results we obtained can be useful for recruitment processes where the overall image and appeal of material makes a difference.

Prior research on recruitment of women to computing has established that computing tasks involving People rather than Things have been perceived as much more appealing by female high-school students (potentially recruitable as university computing students). This paper changes the focus from prospective to current university students and presents the results of a new experiment that advances and moves beyond earlier research in two crucial respects. First of all, the participants of the experiment are N=152 university students, who already study computing, rather than general high-school students. Second of all, the choice between a People-themed versus an isomorphic Things-themed version of an educational task now pertains to real (in fact, mandatory) assignments that the students had to perform, rather than hypothetical tasks. The change of experimental context, design, and methodology allows us to complement previous findings related to recruitment with suggestions significant for computing educational activities. The overall findings of the new experiment are consistent with that of the previous one. We find that, also at university, there is a visible preference for choosing People themed over Things themed computing tasks amongst women. The results also expose considerable variation between tasks in the effect of gender observed. At the same time, male students, in general, seem to be either indifferent to the themes or to slightly prefer People versions. This suggests that educators should consider favoring People themed assignments over ones involving Things.