Do more choices make us happier (in gaming)?

[Dice4Hire]

I agree that too many choices can be paralyzing and can cause one to second-guess themselves, but there is a third option, which has been mentioned above.

It is fun to try new things. Why do people try the new flavor of chips when they really love another one, or go to the new coffee shop, etc? They are just expanding their choices and leading to unhappiness? I do not think so.

Variety is the spice of life, or so I think.

I am one of those players who likes to change characters a lot. In PBEMs or face to face, I am usually the first who wants to try out a new combo, or a new build. It is fun for me to try new ways to play, and thus experience parts of the game that I would not have experienced otherwise.

Yes, it occasionally causes continuity problems and such, but in most cases it can be worked around. People do die in games, or supposedly.

But going back to choice, I prefer to have a good number of choices in a game, but not all of them need to be mechanical ones. Like the "strong race" above. Mechanically, that is great, but choosing minotaur, goliath, or big human adds a lot without adding too much.

 

[WayneLigon]

The problem with that and similar studies is that the problem is not with choice per se, but with the number and quality of choices. There's a point of diminishing returns; people love choice (indeed it's probably the single strongest motivator in the entire human psyche) but are overwhelmed by too much choice to the point that they choose nothing.

'Making the best of it' is not happiness; it's just sour-grapes 'satisfaction', at best.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The problem with that and similar studies is that the problem is not with choice per se, but with the number and quality of choices. There's a point of diminishing returns; people love choice (indeed it's probably the single strongest motivator in the entire human psyche)...

I would strongly argue that is patently false. At most, it's a pillar of certain Western cultures.

This is addressed somewhat in the talks I linked, and I've seen the data from some of the studies. Wanting choice and having choice actually be good for you are two different things. In this respect, choice is a lot like any number of substances people seek out aggressively.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How meaningful are the choices? Different choices to me have different returns.

In 4e do I enjoy the choice for a fighter to have Cleave or Tide of Iron? Hell, yes. The choice is meaningful, it affects the way I play my character allowing me to represent them better, and feels good. I'm also reminded of it every time I use my character. I sincerely doubt that I would enjoy someone else having made the mechanics of my PC in 4e. (Although a lot of that is that my System-Fu is strong).

In 4e do I enjoy the choice for a fighter to have Weapon Focus or Weapon Expertise? Not really. I don't see the impact, I only work out the benefits afterwards, and it doesn't feel that different. I wouldn't care if someone made this choice for me in a system I didn't know well - and wouldn't have the opportunity for regrets or to second guess myself. This is probably the closest equivalent to the choosing a photograph.

In 3e do I enjoy the opportunity for my Bard to choose between Song of the Heart and Power Attack. No. The choice to take Power Attack is just irritating. And I'd prefer it if someone took away the bad choices here.

 

[Nifft]

It was, as in there not being a poll, the OP chose you would not vote.

Are you happy? Or should I ask in a week?

My current satisfaction rating is 4.7, and yes, you should ask me again in a week.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Shaman]

In ancient Rome there was a poem about a dog who found two bones. He picked at one; he licked the other. He went in circles 'til he dropped dead.

 

[WayneLigon]

I would strongly argue that is patently false. At most, it's a pillar of certain Western cultures.

Look up secondary reinforcement. Culture has nothing to do with it.

 

[pawsplay]

I might say that the art of RPG design is deftly removing choices until what is left is interesting.

 

[Nifft]

I might say that the art of RPG design is deftly removing choices until what is left is interesting.

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Leonard Nimoy, when you discover Engineering.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Odhanan]

I think that in many ways, more written choices make for less actual choice in what some players and GMs can do at their game table, depending mostly on mind set and play style.

If you give some gamers a very loose game system, like say, Swords & Wizardry, to work with, they will start coming up with zillions of home grown variations, imaginative ideas, and get more and more inspired as they play it.

If you give these same people a game like Pathfinder RPG, they might find it unfairly limited, too picky about this or that option being presented to them, or not presented to them.

Yet, Pathfinder RPG provides WAY more text and game mechanics than Swords & Wizardry does! Interesting, isn't it?

Some other gamers might feel completely differently about these two games, remaining puzzled at Swords & Wizardry's approach, wondering why the heck there aren't any rules for say, tripping somebody, or blinding them with your weapon, or some such, while reveling in the wealth of detail Pathfinder RPG will present to them, inventing tons of prestige classes, coming up with their own magic items, or templates.

My conclusion? I don't think that more written options necessarily makes for a better game, or for more choices, even. What matters in terms of game design is to identify your audience, and address this audience by providing just the right amount of written choices so they can grasp its underlying logic and make up game elements of their own, as they play the game and get to know its intricacies, and philosophy.

It's really fascinating, to me.