Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
A discussion of player choices sprung up in this thread in the latter pages.
Here are a few of my statements from that discussion (this time with links to the relevant TED talks).
It is worth reflecting that having more choices actually does NOT necessarily make people happier. Usually quite the opposite. Look at any TED talk by Barry Schwartz or Dan Gilbert for some illustrations. But the short version is that people who no choices or a very narrow selection of choices almost always end up happier with their outcome than people who have a huge variety of options.
For example, people decorating a room from a very short, limited catalog of options versus people with a giant, comprehensive catalog. The first group often doesn't see "exactly what they want" but somehow if you go back to them a few days, weeks, or months later, they are always happier with the final room than the people who had a giant, comprehensive list of options.
Another famous example:
Students were given an opportunity to take several pictures of campus for a study (at least in the initial run, they were all seniors, as to leverage nostalgia). They were then told they could keep one. Group A got to choose which one. Group B had their choice made for them by the researcher.
Group A was happier with their picture the day they picked it. But when the researchers check back a week later, Group B was much happier with their picture than Group A.
Expertise of the person doing the choosing is sometimes a factor, but not always.
Infinite options does not improve quality of life. And I'm fairly certain this applies to games just as well.
When you can choose from 10,000 different starting combinations of class/race, you should be able to find the "right one for you." When presented with this wide set of choices, most people profess to be happy about having options. But as you move forward, whenever something rubs you slightly wrong about how it's playing out, the average human being comes to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the choices they made. "There were thousands of possibilities! One of them had to be right." This leads to unhappiness with the state of affairs, and unhappiness with the choice you made. Frequently, this anger is redirected at someone proximate. Your DM tricked you into it, WotC didn't make the class right, WotC made it look better than it actually played, etc. Over time, there's simply cognitive dissonance generated by the fact that you had "perfect" choice, but at the end of the day, nothing is ever perfect. The expectation of perfect choice cannot be fulfilled.
But when you have only 12 possible combinations... you select one and are more likely to "roll with the punches" when things rub you a little wrong early on. Over time, "making the best of it" leads naturally into actually being happy with it. You went in with no illusion of perfection to be punctured, and are more likely to focus on the positive.
Game A gives you Minotaurs, Goliaths, Half-giants, Half-orcs, Gorilla-men, and Klingons to choose from, all being stronger than "average" but with slightly different modifiers.
Game B gives you "Strong guys."
At the time of character creation, Game A players who want a strong race are happier. But check back in session 2, or session 5, or session 10 and ask them how happy they are with their character.
I will bet you good money that even within the group of gamers (who hilariously and reliably claim a degree of iconoclasty that is over 9000) that Game B's "Strong guy" players are will rate their character higher on whatever scales you're using.
Now, I'm schematizing a bit excessively. A single non-choice is not always best. And there are differences depending on the nature of the choice to be made. In most cases, a small, manageable number of options leads to better outcomes than having everything under the sun available. Occasionally, having the choice made for you actually leads to the best outcomes.
I humbly suggest that randomization (and its small group of vocal adherents) are an outgrowth of the latter within gaming circles.
Overall, there has been a tendency to increase the number of available choices across all decision points as time has gone by. The first trick is to figure out which choices add to overall player happiness and which do not. The second is to hit on how many options continue to be a value add, and at which point there are too many options. The third is to figure out how to make money once you've hit that limit and adding more classes, races, feats, powers, etc is just decreasing overall player enjoyment.
Here are a few of my statements from that discussion (this time with links to the relevant TED talks).
It is worth reflecting that having more choices actually does NOT necessarily make people happier. Usually quite the opposite. Look at any TED talk by Barry Schwartz or Dan Gilbert for some illustrations. But the short version is that people who no choices or a very narrow selection of choices almost always end up happier with their outcome than people who have a huge variety of options.
For example, people decorating a room from a very short, limited catalog of options versus people with a giant, comprehensive catalog. The first group often doesn't see "exactly what they want" but somehow if you go back to them a few days, weeks, or months later, they are always happier with the final room than the people who had a giant, comprehensive list of options.
Another famous example:
Students were given an opportunity to take several pictures of campus for a study (at least in the initial run, they were all seniors, as to leverage nostalgia). They were then told they could keep one. Group A got to choose which one. Group B had their choice made for them by the researcher.
Group A was happier with their picture the day they picked it. But when the researchers check back a week later, Group B was much happier with their picture than Group A.
Expertise of the person doing the choosing is sometimes a factor, but not always.
Infinite options does not improve quality of life. And I'm fairly certain this applies to games just as well.
When you can choose from 10,000 different starting combinations of class/race, you should be able to find the "right one for you." When presented with this wide set of choices, most people profess to be happy about having options. But as you move forward, whenever something rubs you slightly wrong about how it's playing out, the average human being comes to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the choices they made. "There were thousands of possibilities! One of them had to be right." This leads to unhappiness with the state of affairs, and unhappiness with the choice you made. Frequently, this anger is redirected at someone proximate. Your DM tricked you into it, WotC didn't make the class right, WotC made it look better than it actually played, etc. Over time, there's simply cognitive dissonance generated by the fact that you had "perfect" choice, but at the end of the day, nothing is ever perfect. The expectation of perfect choice cannot be fulfilled.
But when you have only 12 possible combinations... you select one and are more likely to "roll with the punches" when things rub you a little wrong early on. Over time, "making the best of it" leads naturally into actually being happy with it. You went in with no illusion of perfection to be punctured, and are more likely to focus on the positive.
Game A gives you Minotaurs, Goliaths, Half-giants, Half-orcs, Gorilla-men, and Klingons to choose from, all being stronger than "average" but with slightly different modifiers.
Game B gives you "Strong guys."
At the time of character creation, Game A players who want a strong race are happier. But check back in session 2, or session 5, or session 10 and ask them how happy they are with their character.
I will bet you good money that even within the group of gamers (who hilariously and reliably claim a degree of iconoclasty that is over 9000) that Game B's "Strong guy" players are will rate their character higher on whatever scales you're using.
Now, I'm schematizing a bit excessively. A single non-choice is not always best. And there are differences depending on the nature of the choice to be made. In most cases, a small, manageable number of options leads to better outcomes than having everything under the sun available. Occasionally, having the choice made for you actually leads to the best outcomes.
I humbly suggest that randomization (and its small group of vocal adherents) are an outgrowth of the latter within gaming circles.
Overall, there has been a tendency to increase the number of available choices across all decision points as time has gone by. The first trick is to figure out which choices add to overall player happiness and which do not. The second is to hit on how many options continue to be a value add, and at which point there are too many options. The third is to figure out how to make money once you've hit that limit and adding more classes, races, feats, powers, etc is just decreasing overall player enjoyment.
