Nifft
Penguin Herder
You left out 3e and 3.5e.
Going right from AD&D to 4e a bit too far a leap, IMHO.
Cheers, -- N
Do more choices make us happier (in gaming)?
- Thread starter Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
- Start date
Going right from AD&D to 4e a bit too far a leap, IMHO.
Cheers, -- N
the Jester
Legend
I'd be interested to look at data from 2e as well- suddenly deity does matter, because it dictates what spheres you will have access to, and that is a huge improvement in customizing clerics.
In fact, I'm going to say it- 2e had the best clerics ever (NOTE: this is assuming balanced homebrewed specialty clerics).
awesomeocalypse
First Post
In my case, its not so much that I need millions of choices, as I need one specific choice, and if that choice doesn't exist (or "exists" but is blatantly mechanically inferior), I will never enjoy the game.
In my case, that choice is the option to play an intelligence based spellcaster whose powers are inherant (or psionic equivalent, in sci fi games). Basically, a nerd whose nerdiness directly corresponds to an intrinsic (meaning, not related to gear) ability to blow people up, and who does not rely on the gods for help.
This is because I play RPGs to act out wish-fulfillment fantasies, and I'm an atheist nerd who primarily fantasizes, not about being something *other* than an atheist nerd (like, for example, a brawny, musclebound star athlete or warrior), but about situations in which being an atheist nerd makes you teh awesomest (obviously my favorite Dragonlance character was Raistlin).
If effectively contributing to a game requires that I play a character whose effectiveness is either tied to physical aptitude, or to faith in some diety, then that games fails as wish fulfillment for me (which is why, for example, I don't play Iron heroes).
If I was the only gamer on earth, then the only class D&D would ever need would be wizard.
But I'm not the only gamer on earth. And the thing is, lots of other people have a completely different archetype which is their "one choice" that they have to have. Rogues and fighters and priests sure, but you often find even more granularity than that. Players who just have to have nature themed powers, players who need to use spears, players who specialize in fast-talking. There are a nearly infinite number of archetypes, and if you look long enough you'll find some gamers who simply won't enjoy a game unless their archetype of choice is supported.
So, in designing a game for a wide commercial audience, you need lots of choices, so that guys like me who aren't having fun if they aren't playing Raistlin can have fun, and so can the guy guys who only enjoy playing Conan.
In my case, that choice is the option to play an intelligence based spellcaster whose powers are inherant (or psionic equivalent, in sci fi games). Basically, a nerd whose nerdiness directly corresponds to an intrinsic (meaning, not related to gear) ability to blow people up, and who does not rely on the gods for help.
This is because I play RPGs to act out wish-fulfillment fantasies, and I'm an atheist nerd who primarily fantasizes, not about being something *other* than an atheist nerd (like, for example, a brawny, musclebound star athlete or warrior), but about situations in which being an atheist nerd makes you teh awesomest (obviously my favorite Dragonlance character was Raistlin).
If effectively contributing to a game requires that I play a character whose effectiveness is either tied to physical aptitude, or to faith in some diety, then that games fails as wish fulfillment for me (which is why, for example, I don't play Iron heroes).
If I was the only gamer on earth, then the only class D&D would ever need would be wizard.
But I'm not the only gamer on earth. And the thing is, lots of other people have a completely different archetype which is their "one choice" that they have to have. Rogues and fighters and priests sure, but you often find even more granularity than that. Players who just have to have nature themed powers, players who need to use spears, players who specialize in fast-talking. There are a nearly infinite number of archetypes, and if you look long enough you'll find some gamers who simply won't enjoy a game unless their archetype of choice is supported.
So, in designing a game for a wide commercial audience, you need lots of choices, so that guys like me who aren't having fun if they aren't playing Raistlin can have fun, and so can the guy guys who only enjoy playing Conan.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
And 2E, with it's non-weapon proficiencies and kits.
The worst offender would be 2.5E (i.e., player's option series), with its point-buy method to building your scores, race and even class.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
Personally, I do not like games with laundry list of classes, races, skills, spells, equipment and so on. It's not because of paralysis or a lack of understanding or anything else. It's because it's simply tedious. The char-gen portion of rpgs is just not where I get my enjoyment out of rpgs. Give me a few choices - strong guy, smart guy, tricky guy - and let me game.
When actually playing the game, though, I want the straitjacket thrown off. I want to do whatever comes into my head. I don't want to feel like I'm in a "choose your own path" adventure book or one of those "choose from these three dialogue options computer 'role playing games.'"
I think I may be in the minority of gamers in both regards.
When actually playing the game, though, I want the straitjacket thrown off. I want to do whatever comes into my head. I don't want to feel like I'm in a "choose your own path" adventure book or one of those "choose from these three dialogue options computer 'role playing games.'"
I think I may be in the minority of gamers in both regards.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
I'm not sure about that. I want a character that pops out of my head, not one that I have to reference 5 books to build right. In game I want to be able to do anything reasonable. Outside of combat, that's a lot. That's why I don't really care if they provide any hard and fast rules at all for non-combat situations. Inside of combat, I'm willing to accept a fair amount of restrictions to make sure it's balanced and interesting for everyone and has some depth.
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Except not having rules for a situation forces the choice burden on the GM instead of the players. Now the GM has to pick the right rule from an unknown number of choices because none have been pre-made for them.
Crothian
First Post
You want unlimited choices, I think lots of people like that. Though it can be tough for a DM.
There's a lot of extrapolating going on. Bare in mind that the caveat here is "Choice is good - until it isn't".
To discuss this on an RPG, the amount of choices doesn't necessarily mean paralysis. Take for example the sheer amount of spells out there.
If I'm not going to play a spellcaster, all those options don't matter to me.
In many cases, the number of options also does not mean that what you want is there.
Ultimately, I think that choice = happiness when each choice is something different, rather than ways to get at what you want. Choice that offers differences allows for zeroing in on specialization, which is often useful in RPGs.
To discuss this on an RPG, the amount of choices doesn't necessarily mean paralysis. Take for example the sheer amount of spells out there.
If I'm not going to play a spellcaster, all those options don't matter to me.
In many cases, the number of options also does not mean that what you want is there.
Ultimately, I think that choice = happiness when each choice is something different, rather than ways to get at what you want. Choice that offers differences allows for zeroing in on specialization, which is often useful in RPGs.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
If that is the case, the trick is making sure when you add more choices that you're not creating a distinction without a difference.
Similar Threads
