1. Introduction
[1.1] In the digital game culture, fans wield a great deal of power. The overall revenue of games and gaming is nearly nine times that of commercial movies, meaning games have a large economic, cultural, and social impact (Arora 2023). The average gamer spends a significant time gaming, with surveys showing nearly half of the younger generations (Millennials and Gen Y) spending more than eight hours a week gaming, with 47 percent of gamers from Generation X or older indicating they have been engaged in the leisure activity for more than twenty years (Gearhart 2025) Because games take up so much time in the lives of players, it is not shocking that gamers wish to have an impact on the games, in more direct ways than economic and production influence.
[1.2] I discuss one of those direct ways, which I label as jury-rigging. Simply, this involves the manipulation of the gaming experience that is done without changing aspects of the game. Unlike modding, players are not changing things in-game via the change of game aspects or code through means like downloadable content (DLC). Gamers, as a fandom, act within the parameters of the static game without altering it but adapt their playstyle to create a different game experience, such as hardcore playstyle. Jury-rigging games demonstrates a respect in the fandom for the consistency of the game, while creating subcultures that provide a unique practice for those who participate. Investigating jury-rigging provides a different perspective on fan agency, where gamers are not thinking outside the box but shifting how they operate within the box, so to speak. While it comes with its own challenges, fans persist in their efforts and developers are taking note.
2. Modding
[2.1] The experience of modding is not new; research notes it has been widespread since the beginning of gaming and enterprising individuals with knowledge of game coding have sought ways to change the games (Postigo 2010; Scacchi 2010; Unger 2012). Sotamaa (2010) notes there are three traditionally understood reasons for modding: artistic motivation, game identification, and visibility (in terms of potentially being hired in the gaming industry). He adds to that with his research, suggesting that other motivations include an almost scientific notion of "pushing" a game via playing it further (243), hacking a game to understand more deeply how it works, researching a game to figure out the "why" of it (246), and the collective community that can be found through game modification. These points become important because it demonstrates that modding is a micro action, completed by the individual in order to change the experience of the game for a potentially larger (macro) audience. While a fan could of course only change things that impact them and that they see, given the elements of motivation that Sotamaa indicates, the value for modding is in the viewing of the changes, whether they are shared or not. Modders do build community and constitute a subculture, but it speaks more to shared passion and similar activity, though cocreation can occur (Poor 2014; Poretski and Arazy 2017). It is, then, akin to how artists share their work with other artists and commune with their fellows to receive critique or learn new techniques to further their skills.
[2.2] It is important to note that modding can be done for macro level reasons. Changes and adaptions made in games could be used for the purpose of cultural preservation (Majewski 2017). Additionally, modding has been done in order to include physical representations of marginalized groups that are less common in games, such as queer folk and racial minorities (Frelik 2023; Howard 2021). Some have been critical of these efforts, given companies take note of the mods and thus appear to lean on modders to fill in any representation holes they might miss (Whelan and Kappel 2020). Nonetheless, beyond the creative value of modding, there is the possibility of community support through various aspects such as these.
3. Jury-rigging
[3.1] Some gamers choose not to change the game and seek to modify their play within the static gaming system. An example of this type of jury-rigging can be seen in the game Baldur's Gate 3, produced by Larian Studios. It is a fantasy role-playing game where the player controls characters to complete an overall game mission but has a number of side missions and opportunities for characters. One challenge done by some players was to see how many nonplayer characters they could seduce into sexual encounters; sex is an optional series of encounters in the game that do not affect the overall plot (Stanfill et al. 2024). One particular target gained some acclaim, as characters can have sex with a druid who shape changes into a bear (James 2023). As noted, pursuing these acts does not change the spirit or code of the game but adds additional personal challenge and meaning making to the player. Bluntly, any player-driven modification of the game that does not change the technical makeup of the game or code but increases the difficulty for the player could be collectively known as jury-rigging.
[3.2] I discuss jury-rigging as a form of hardcore play (sometimes called permadeath), where gamers attach a finite limitation, a mortality if you will, to their in-game character. Under this style of play, if an individual has their character eliminated, they retire the character and start the process of play all over again (Imbierowicz 2019). Regardless of the fact that games might give multiple chances (such as standard arcade games, which have lives) or unlimited chances (such as games like World of Warcraft), those individuals who engage in hardcore play consider themselves honor-bound to adhere to the before mentioned mortality and start the process of the game over with a new (or duplicate) character at its beginning. It is important to know that there are no in-game mechanisms or rules that are set for this type of play, though the phenomenon is not unknown.
[3.3] Hardcore play, or the existence of permadeath, is not a new phenomenon. Early games were modeled in this style, given that technological limitations did not allow for continuous play that recognized progression (save points). However, as console and computer technology improved, players had greater ability to amass progression in games and rely on saves by the system (via checkpoints or autosaves) or by themselves manually. These precautionary measures became more valuable with the rise of computer role-playing games (CRPGs), which required hundreds of hours of gameplay to complete and master, even with the ability to save. As games became even more complex, and importantly with the rise of multiplayer games, the ability to save progression became more important, particularly given circumstances outside of the gamer's control, such as technological problems (glitches in the game, power outages, or loss of internet connection) or griefing, disruptive behavior by other players that might cause a player to step away (Armitage et al. 2006; Paul et al. 2015). But there has always been an appreciation for games portraying the high risk that comes along with permadeath (Munn 2023). Particularly, the category of games known as roguelike often involve a permadeath feature (Parker 2017). Notably, Activision Blizzard's Diablo and Mojang Studio's Minecraft have long sported hardcore options that allow for players to have mortal characters (Chang et al. 2017; Copcic et al. 2013).
[3.4] However, under the concept of jury-rigging, individuals engage in hardcore play without a setting or internal system to enforce it. Thus, it is up to the individual to reinforce the results of death or losing (however it is defined) as the games would normally repopulate the player. I discuss two examples of this: hardcore play in World of Warcraft and Nuzlocke in Pokémon games.
[3.5] World of Warcraft (WoW) is a massive multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) that was created by Activision/Blizzard. Since 2004, it has stood as one of the most celebrated games of its genre, claiming millions of fans (Robinson and Bowman 2022). The premise is simple: Players make a character in the game world, with roles and powers that are common in contemporary role-playing games. However, the player is not the only person in the game, as thousands of others are in the same game world and can interact with the gaming missions and other players. In the common playstyle of WoW, a character death means the character spirit is shunted to the nearby graveyard, and that spirit can make its way back to the body (or respawn at the graveyard) with a cost applied to their equipment. However, in hardcore play, if a character is killed and sent to the graveyard, the game ends (for the player) and the player must start the game again. Originally this was simply a style of play that was adopted by longtime WoW fans who wanted to test their stamina and gaming ability. Eventually communities and guilds formed who operated in the virtual world as hardcore characters, even though the vast majority of players were not. These collective communities developed internal rules and guidelines as to the playstyle, though it was largely straightforward.
[3.6] Similarly, Nuzlocke (or the Nuzlocke Challenge) is a style of play that occurs across several Pokémon digital games. Pokémon is a cultural powerhouse, existing as an anime cartoon that grew into multiple products, including movies, toys, and digital games. Perhaps the most recognized version of Pokémon digital games is Pokémon Go!, which allows players to use their smartphones as a tool to capture the mythical Pokémon and to battle others. Additionally, there are series of games played on consoles and handhelds (often coded by color, such as Pokémon Silver or Pokémon Violet), which function more like standard video games. Those participating in a Nuzlocke challenge are limited in the beginning to creatures they can capture, and similar to permadeath options, if any captured Pokémon are rendered unusable (referred to as fainting in the game), that creature cannot be used again (Darrow 2020). Similar to what occurred with WoW, players developed a community to establish rules and persist in the style of play side by side with standard players. The community rules are considered gentleman's agreements that gamers pledge to follow, though again, no internal gaming system reinforces these rules.
4. Jury-rigging as fan agency and fan service
[4.1] When using the lens of fandom participatory culture in regard to jury-rigging, it is clear the practice is less about blatant manipulation for the purpose of self-satisfaction and more a reflection of fan agency (Jenkins 2018). The five components of fandom outlined by Jenkins as a participatory culture (low barriers to entry, strong support for creating and sharing, informal membership, a belief that contributions matter, and social connection) are clear. First, jury-rigging is a clear act of expression with very low barriers for participation. Because those who engage in the practice act within the confines of the game, there is little requirement for technical knowledge that would create an impediment for some. This is different from modding, which does require a level of technical knowledge that might not be extensive but could still serve as restrictive for some. There are strong supports and social connection present for those involved in jury-rigging games, as evidenced by the examples present in Diablo and Nuzlocke. Those who participate in these efforts are keen to share their experiences and link with others who appreciate these different styles of play. Lastly, there is evidence, in these social spaces aligned with jury-rigged games, of social connection and a belief that their contributions matter, as spaces like Reddit and Facebook provide a public sphere where someone can seek out help, promote their accomplishments, or just engage in a discussion about the jury-rigged game. Undoubtedly, operating in a game as it was a hardcore setting or participating in online scavenger hunts requires the affirmation of a shared experience and creates an interaction that is both personal and social. Fans must pledge some level of honesty in order to interact with games under these shadow rules, as there are no in-game mechanisms that would penalize deviation.
[4.2] The act of participation is not about presentation or critique to the degree that research found among modders. The jury-rigged game serves as validation of the social actions and provides validation to individuals who are interacting with the game in a similar manner. In short, the jury-rigging allows the game fan to be seen and to see others, serving as a form of agency. The challenges that players who jury-rig games take on are more arduous than for the standard player, and what could be seen as minor accomplishments in the broader game have notable significance if the player is jury-rigging a game. For example, defeating a boss might be a capable feat for an individual with a number of resets, something many could accomplish. Defeating a boss on the first try, without suffering a character death, is another matter entirely.
[4.3] Moreover, it must be noted how players who choose to jury-rig games are subject to forces that lie outside the concerns of standard game players. For example, a player who loses control of their character due to a game glitch or a network issue can simply continue from the last point with minor frustration. However, most jury-rigged permadeath playstyles operate with something similar to Diablo's act of God clause, which means any disruption in play that leads to character death cannot—and should not—be reversed (https://maxroll.gg/d3/resources/hardcore-guide). In this scenario, it creates additional risk for the player; their manipulation of gamer agency has created a circumstance that makes them more beholden to matters completely out of control that would cause only minor annoyances for the standard gamer. The risk these players take is significant.
[4.4] The formation of jury-rigging games has caused game developers to take note. One of the best examples is WoW, which recognized those players who were playing in a hardcore manner and introduced hardcore servers and most recently a dedicated hardcore setting for the game (https://worldofwarcraft.blizzard.com/en-us/news/24056987). It becomes clear that some developers appreciate those who jury-rig their games and wish to make these self-imposed conditions actual choices in the game. Even if this were not the case, there is little evidence that gaming fans would stop the process of jury-rigging, as it appeals to these players as a completely different game. Jury-rigging then demonstrates a unique type of fan interaction within the constraints of the gaming world but providing the opportunity for a different experience that can be shared with others.