Do more choices make us happier (in gaming)?

[Tav_Behemoth]

You left out 3e and 3.5e.

Going right from AD&D to 4e a bit too far a leap, IMHO.

I'd love to see someone do that analysis; I won't until I need to make a 2E, 2.XE, 3E, or 3.5E, which is to say "no time soon".

A good book about choice and how to get its benefits without options paralysis is Nudge, which inspired this blog post (and perhaps others; I'd love to know about 'em if so!)

 

[Rechan]

Also, and more to rephrase an earlier point I made: choice paralysis only happens (I think) if you are not sure what choice to make, or you potentially want all of them.

Look at all the RPGs out there today. If you presented someone with all those RPGs, and said "So, what do you want to play?" assuming that the person had a group willing to run/play it, I think that you'd only get two answers:

1) The person likely goes with RPGs they've played, and are more likely to go with an RPG that they play the most. In this case, the person really isn't interested in playing those other RPGs.

2) The person chooses an RPG they've never had the opportunity to play before, but they are curious and want to give it a shot.

 

[Umbran]

Overall, there has been a tendency to increase the number of available choices across all decision points as time has gone by.

Perhaps, within the life of a given game, this is true. I am not sure it is true as an overall design philosophy in games - I am not sure the games of 2005+ start out with more choices than the games of the 1990s, for example.

And, I'd have to say that having many choices, in and of itself, is not valuable. I'm pretty sure the issue isn't choice, so much as the ability to play what you want to play. In order for two disparate people to both play what they want, the system must provide choices that can end with each at their desired points.

The first trick is to figure out which choices add to overall player happiness and which do not.

I don't think that's obtainable - there is no one "overall player happiness". Different players want different things from games, so they need different choices.

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.

I am not convinced that this is really the job of the publisher. Players and GMs need to remember that they can edit their own games down to the choices they want to make. They do not need to include everything ever published for a system in any particular campaign.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Perhaps, within the life of a given game, this is true. I am not sure it is true as an overall design philosophy in games - I am not sure the games of 2005+ start out with more choices than the games of the 1990s, for example.

I was speaking specifically of those editions of D&D I'm familiar with, primarily.

And, I'd have to say that having many choices, in and of itself, is not valuable.

Absolutely.

I'm pretty sure the issue isn't choice, so much as the ability to play what you want to play. In order for two disparate people to both play what they want, the system must provide choices that can end with each at their desired points.

The data about other choices in life suggests that this is not the case. Getting what you want is fine in the moment, but in the long run is not ideal. Getting something that is "sorta" what you want has a better long term outcome.

I don't think that's obtainable - there is no one "overall player happiness". Different players want different things from games, so they need different choices.

More or less agreed. I think, however, that making a "game for everyone" is a fool's errand. At best, you will make all of the people happy some of the time.

However, if you aim for a niche market, you can make some of the people happy a fairly large percentage of the time. Know your audience, and supply the choices they need.

Note that I did not say "the choices they want" since getting what you want is apparently frequently detrimental to long term happiness.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It is worth reflecting that having more choices actually does NOT necessarily make people happier. Usually quite the opposite.

(emphasis mine) I disagree.

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.

Likewise, here.

Infinite options does not improve quality of life. And I'm fairly certain this applies to games just as well.

'Infinite' (or any other clearly hyperbolic term) need not enter into this, surely.

To put it bluntly, anyone subscribing to the above perspective might do well to try a far less free, privileged life for a while, and see how those fragile theories regarding the 'burden of options' (or what have you) hold up.

Anyway, regarding gaming. . . it doesn't bother me either way, and I haven't seen it particularly bother others IRL. *shrug*

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

(emphasis mine) I disagree.

<< snip >>

To put it bluntly, anyone subscribing to the above perspective might do well to try a far less free, privileged life for a while, and see how those fragile theories regarding the 'burden of options' (or what have you) hold up.[/QUOTE]
That's so binary as to be an utter strawman. There is a lot room between "I can choose from a 100 page catalog of colors for my couch" and "the State will decide if I even get a couch." Nothing I talked about (or the talks I linked presented) could remotely be extended to something so dire as you're talking about.

There is data. In fact, every year the evidence mounts higher that there are several decisions we make poorly in our daily lives that are partially driven by an over-abundance of options (Note: no one is saying that means the ideal state is zero options. There is probably an ideal state somewhere in the middle. I urge you to watch one of the linked talks). The opinion part is to what extent that data can be used to look at or talk about gaming.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Please ignore that last post. The quoting messed up and for some reason the site won't let me edit.

(emphasis mine) I disagree.

SNIP

To put it bluntly, anyone subscribing to the above perspective might do well to try a far less free, privileged life for a while, and see how those fragile theories regarding the 'burden of options' (or what have you) hold up.[/QUOTE]
That's so binary as to be an utter strawman. There is a lot room between "I can choose from a 100 page catalog of colors for my couch" and "the State will decide if I even get a couch." Nothing I talked about (or the talks I linked presented) could remotely be extended to something so dire as you're talking about.

There is data. In fact, every year the evidence mounts higher that there are several decisions we make poorly in our daily lives that are partially driven by an over-abundance of options (Note: no one is saying that means the ideal state is zero options. There is probably an ideal state somewhere in the middle. I urge you to watch one of the linked talks).

The opinion part is to what extent that data can be used to look at or talk about gaming.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Oh, for the love of Pete! Here's the correct version of my post. If a mod were to delete those last two posts, I'd appreciate it. The site won't let me.

(emphasis mine) I disagree.

<< snip >>

To put it bluntly, anyone subscribing to the above perspective might do well to try a far less free, privileged life for a while, and see how those fragile theories regarding the 'burden of options' (or what have you) hold up.

That's so binary as to be an utter strawman. There is a lot room between "I can choose from a 100 page catalog of colors for my couch" and "the State will decide if I even get a couch." Nothing I talked about (or the talks I linked presented) could remotely be extended to something so dire as you're talking about.

There is data. In fact, every year the evidence mounts higher that there are several decisions we make poorly in our daily lives that are partially driven by an over-abundance of options (Note: no one is saying that means the ideal state is zero options. There is probably an ideal state somewhere in the middle. I urge you to watch one of the linked talks). The opinion part is to what extent that data can be used to look at or talk about gaming.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To quote Devo:

"Freedom of choice is what you got.
Freedom from choice is what you want."


And let us not forget Aesop's Fable about The Heron.

I'm kind of an amalgam.

On average, I prefer to have more options, though I also recognize that in certain circumstances, fewer options may lead to superior results or greater enjoyment.

I have files and files of PCs as yet unplayed for dozens of systems- over a hundred for HERO and for 3.5 (each) alone. And I add more every year...

Despite this, I've only retired one PC from a campaign, and only one other got "suicided"- and that was in order to fill a gap in the party (due to a player having to move away) that seriously needed to be filled.

 

[The Shaman]

To quote Devo:

"Freedom of choice is what you got.
Freedom from choice is what you need."

Been there, quoted that. Great minds and all that.

Oh, and I believe the line is, "Freedom from choice is what you want."