Do more choices make us happier (in gaming)?

[Garmorn]

I have read all of this tread and think you are over looking one important reason for multiple choices in an RPG. More choices it can effectively cover the more people will find what they want in the game and use it.

Player A might want only one or two types of fighters but neither of them interest player B, ect.

This is one reason why car companies offer several versions of each model. To reach as many customers as possible. In 1/2e terms: The straight fighter was not every one's combat type so you had paladins, rangers, ect.

 

[Remathilis]

Didn't read all the thread, but I'll throw in 2 cp anyway.

Isn't a lot of this a perception of Opportunity Cost?

For example, if I want to build a big-tough-brute, my racial choices incur an Opportunity Cost (OC for short). If my choices are human, elf, dwarf, and halfling, my choice is pretty easy; its going to be human or dwarf. All that matters is specific racial traits (bonus feat, or con bump for example).

Now, add half-orc, half-elf, and gnome to the mix. Suddenly, my OC raises because of half-orc (the quint brute race). I might really want that +2 Str, but do I want to give up that +2 con or bonus feat?

My OC rises further with every optional race that fits the brute role: half-ogre gives strength AND con, but at an LA. Minotaur is really awesome, but has racial HD. Orc is stronger, and dumber, than half-orc. Goliath is kinda like a Half-ogre but with a reasonable LA. Etc, Etc. Maybe I want the minotaurs cunning, but I really like the visual of a half-ogre, for example. And my NEXT PC is so going to be a goliath druid...

When there was four races, the OC was the other three races. Since two didn't fit, the OC was really the other one (dwarf or human). Each new race adds another OC, since if I pick human (for example), I'm not just skipping dwarf, but also half-orc, half ogre, orc, goliath, etc all of whom would have fit my "brute" role just as well. (Or a lot better than elf would).

So the idea that added choice brings unhappiness is rooted in the "roads not taken", if your only choice for a brute is four races (two of which don't work anyway) then picking human over dwarf is mildly low OC. If you have dozens of other races mentioned above, the OC raises with each race that could've done the job well too.

The trade off for getting the "right fit" I guess...

 

[Hussar]

Tav - your blog post made for really interesting reading.

What I find truly facinating, is the huge increase, percentagewise, of choices going up levels in 1e and then 4e. In 1e, going from 1st level to 10th level just about doubles the number of options you have.

In 4e, the 1st level character starts off with more options than the 1e 10th level character, but the 10th level 4e character has only a few more options than his 1st level counterpart. Most of the options are front loaded. And the total number of choices are almost exactly the same.

Interesting.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

In 4e, the 1st level character starts off with more options than the 1e 10th level character, but the 10th level 4e character has only a few more options than his 1st level counterpart. Most of the options are front loaded. And the total number of choices are almost exactly the same.

This isn't true, really. A 10th level 4e character will have 5 times as many feats, about 3 times as many powers, and many more items. Builds become much more divergent the more you level--most level 1 characters of a given build will look pretty similar, its the additional options that come with higher levels that allow for customizing for a given concept.

 

[Windjammer]

For me the problem with options-bloat in D&D 3.x and 4E is that the options that get bloated are (a) very nuanced i.e. very specific and very fine-grained and (b) rarely invite you to make the stuff you've chosen "your own". Let me explain.

I remember a good discussion on the new "base classes" when Player's Handbook 2 came out for 3.x. Some people wondered, "why introduce a knight class? shouldn't the paladin cover that?". I think that response holds the kernel of a truth that is far more generally applicable. WotC has been very good at giving their customers endless lists of fully spelled out options instead of saying, "lo, behold, here's a paladin class, flesh it out however you like - here's a couple of slots you can customize".

So instead of giving you, the customer, a general idea you can toy with (and a couple of instances merely by matter of illustrating that general idea) they deliberately withhold the general idea and then "spam options". Good instances would be this:

1. In the revised 3.5 PHB, there were all those feats which gave two +2 on skills. Why not have a single feat "Pick a feat to get to +2's to two skills of your choice"?

2. Divine Domain feats in 4E Divine Power. Instead of saying "Get a +2 to a skill of your choice [note the similarity to 1.?] and a bonus on a level 1 at-will of your choice" they spammed a chapter full of individual spelled out things.

And that's the catch. Open your character builder to select feats ... you'll be blown away by the number of options. And then behold the twin problems engendered by design choices (a) and (b) above: when you made a choice you didn't like, you aren't invited to think "how can I improve the options I have chosen?", rather you're invited to "re-train"... go back to the step when you chose among fully specified options by WotC. At no step would you go back and say, "hmmm maybe I fleshed out my (own) take on the paladin class in a manner I didn't like, let me try to take a new take on that class" (or feat or spell or power... you name it).

And that is the trap. You're trapped in forever picking, switching, and exchangning among extant options fully spelled out for you - without ever breaking out of that circle. You're deliberately kept away from thinking about the options you've chosen in a more free-form way. Instead of thinking "hmm, I didn't like that cup of coffee, maybe next time I should take a bit more sugar" you're trapped into thinking "hmm, I didn't like that Macchiato X12, next time I should go for Nespresso #13".

That, at least, is the thing I've personally observed myself when going through the option splats in 3.x and 4E. I make no pretense at a generally valid observation, but that's the impact on my psychology when interacting with that material. On reflection, I'd prefer a game that gave me fewer options with greater potential to inspire me to flesh them out in the individual bits and pieces, greater potential to make my choices my own.

 

[Hussar]

This isn't true, really. A 10th level 4e character will have 5 times as many feats, about 3 times as many powers, and many more items. Builds become much more divergent the more you level--most level 1 characters of a given build will look pretty similar, its the additional options that come with higher levels that allow for customizing for a given concept.

I'm just going by what Tav wrote on his blog. The basic choices for a 1st level 4e character are huge. There's tons of choices. And, there are certainly more choices to be made for the 10th level character. But, as a percentage, the difference in the number of choices isn't actually all that many more.

I remember an interview that got posted here a while ago where one of the 4e Dev's talked about learning from video games and how he saw older versions as being very difficult to learn. People took that as a slam on older editions, but, I think they missed the point.

4e did learn one very, very important lesson from video games. In video games, the skills you learn in one game almost always are IDENTICAL in games of the same genre. Once you get over the initial learning curve of a game in a particular genre, learning a new game is a breeze.

For example, if you play a first person shooter on a PC, you will use a mouse to look around and WASD to move your character. This is the same in pretty much every FPS out there - Halo, Doom, Half Life, doesn't matter. It's all the same controls. The number keys will switch your weapons. Etc.

Or, take real time strategy games. You can drag and select multiple units, double clicking on a unit will select similar units in the group, you will have resource gathering units created at a central base, your combat units will be generated in a different building - on and on. If you play Command and Conquer, you can pick up Starcraft and start playing almost immediately. Same with pretty much every other RTS game out there.

Now, turn this back to 4e. Once you play a given character in 4e, you know how to play EVERY other character in the game. Once you get over that initial learning curve (and possible wall of text), you're golden, whether you pick a class from PHB 1 or PHB 3 or PHB 7 years down the line. No more individual mini-games specific to one class or group of classes.

So, while yes you have way more options to creating a 4e character, once you've done it and played it, you can go back and play any other character without having to learn any new mechanics.

Number of options isn't the only issue here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So instead of giving you, the customer, a general idea you can toy with (and a couple of instances merely by matter of illustrating that general idea) they deliberately withhold the general idea and then "spam options". Good instances would be this:

1. In the revised 3.5 PHB, there were all those feats which gave two +2 on skills. Why not have a single feat "Pick a feat to get to +2's to two skills of your choice"?

2. Divine Domain feats in 4E Divine Power. Instead of saying "Get a +2 to a skill of your choice [note the similarity to 1.?] and a bonus on a level 1 at-will of your choice" they spammed a chapter full of individual spelled out things.

They did that several times...and given the relationship between WotC, Paizo and the various freelancers and 3PPs out there, they really should have known better. For me, the classic example of this was found in CompPsi. The Soulknife got several Mindblade shape feats covering 3 different exotic weapons. In a contemporaneous issue of Dragon magazine, there was a Class Acts article on the Soulknife which had several feats for reshaping the Mindblade...but only one was required to reshape it into a single different weapon. One feat covered the bases of 3 CompPsi feats, and expanded the territory to any and all weapons.

Thus, if you wanted a MindFlail, you could take the feat and make one. MindSpear? Take the feat and make one. MindSpikedChain? As ugly as that sounds, take the feat and make one.

However, the other mindblade shape feats did things like let you reshape the mindblade into a shield. Another let you reshape it into a handful of daggers for throwing.

IOW, in the same space WotC spent on 3 feats that did essentially the same thing, Paizo delivered 3 feats that did the same...and a hell of a lot more.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't a lot of this a perception of Opportunity Cost?

It might be, for some, but I don't think that's the majority of it.

I would expect Opportunity Cost Lament to be characterized by retrospective thoughts: "Gosh darn it! If only I'd taken a half-orc, I'd have had a higher Strength, and I'd have made that check to lift the portcullis, and that'd have been cool!"

I think the more basic issue is that people, on the whole, think that if they have a lot of choices, they can make exactly what they want, and in the process they set some expectations. When those expectations are not met, there's disappointment.

If you spend a lot of time and effort on fiddly-bit choices, that's probably because you think they matter (or want them to matter). You take a particular feat, say, because then I can put X and Y and Z together, and the result is pretty cool.

But then you get into play - and X+Y+Z doesn't come up very often. Or it isn't really as super-awesome compared to what the others can do as you hoped. Or you discover that in the situations where your careful X+Y+Z engineering could be replaced by a standard Fireball. Or, all your mechanical gyrations work just fine.... but you find that your character has a personality as flat as Kansas, and there's no fun for you except when you're doing tactical play, or what have you.

You have this thing you thought would b so great, but in the end isn't bad, but isn't great either. It's a letdown. Basically, having choices makes us think those choices are what give us control of fun in play - and maybe they don't.

 

[Hussar]

Good point Umbran. Going from my own recent 4e experience, I've hit pretty much exactly what you said. I made myself a doppleganger warlock (Fae Touched) thinking that it would be very cool to be this trickster guy playing jokes and shape changing and whatnot.

I hate the character. Scratch that. I love the character, Sethalarmis is a blast - based on a mad soup of Kruppe from Steven Erikson and Lucifer Jones from Mike Resnick. I'm totally loving him.

But the mechanical end? The actual class in play? Blah. Boring. I stand there, shoot my blast, and then stand around some more. Totally not feeling it.

Fortunately, my very forgiving DM is letting me rebuild the character into a Rogue (the guy that has lots of shift other people powers - I forget what that's called) and making him human. I think I'll be a lot happier after the change.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Basically, having choices makes us think those choices are what give us control of fun in play - and maybe they don't.

Quoted for getting to the heart of the matter... and because I can't give you xp again yet.