Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[Redshirt]

I don't think that reducing the options in the game reduces the complexity at all. It's very easy to use the standard feat/option/rule, but much more rewarding for me when that option is not available in the game and I am still effective.

 

[nedjer]

Wait, are you guys trying to define fun?

Square root of F = ri + dna + pa + sp + p + pa + age + alt x a/ tw quotient

 

[Nifft]

Square root of F = ri + dna + pa + sp + p + pa + age + alt x a/ tw quotient

So fun is undefined if I used a condom?

"... while playing D&D", -- N

 

[nedjer]

So fun is undefined if I used a condom?

"... while playing D&D", -- N

. . . but much safer

 

[Smoss]

In some ways I agree with the OP... I know when I crafted my system there were certain limits I wanted, but also some things I did not want to limit.

For example, I like SW Saga as it had few classes with several options - I much preferred that over 4e where it feels like a different option means a different class.

So I made my system classless. Buy options with your XP. Limits based on prerequisites, "race", and such. Magic is limited (New magic system).

It made choosing a "race" significant because that changes your options (The only race is human in this world, so race more means culture). It makes character creation a bit more complex. But play is fast and easy. But quick PLAY was the goal, if it cost a bit in creation, that was okay to me. Options do not ALWAYS cause more complex gameplay.

Though my magic system CAN be complex. If you want it to be. If not, play a wizard with set spells in a spellbook. Freeform sorcery is harder to do as it is on the fly creation of spells. But that is a player choice...
--------------------------
Smoss
Doulairen
Or check out some details on my RPG:
Doulairen: RPG System

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

When something imposes comparably more bookkeeping and there is no way to dodge around it, I have a mentally antagonistic reaction against it.

I know there is no way around some amount of bookkeeping, but like many have a justifiable aversion against power creep, I wish as many designers and developers had an eye towards bookkeeping creep.

Just say no to unnecessary bookkeeping creep.

 

[occam]

If less options equal more fun then why do people complain when they don't have options? Lot of people complain about railroading and plenty complained how the the 4E PHB didn't have "core" options like bards and druids while 3rd Edition drew ire over how the only real option for martial classes was full attack.

Full attack isn't the only option, however. You could move and attack, use a magic item, grapple, charge, disarm, bull rush, etc. The problem is that most of those are bad options, but having them available takes up mental space that serves little useful purpose, creating confusion instead of fun. (The fact that most of them also have their own rule subsystems that don't work much like anything else just makes it worse.) You've pinpointed an area where reducing options would probably make the game more fun for most people.

 

[Umbran]

So fun is undefined if I used a condom?

No, you aren't dividing by your dna, just adding it. Which is a good thing, 'cause binary fission at the gaming table always ends up with a big argument over which one of you has to make up a new character.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

{...} binary fission at the gaming table always ends up with a big argument over which one of you has to make up a new character.

Not to mention the arguments over who pays child support for it.

 

[Nifft]

Not to mention the arguments over who pays child support for it.

Nobody pays child support, because as soon as adventurers have children, they are AUTOMATICALLY killed by orcs, thus giving the new generation a conveniently hookless backstory.

- - -

Anyway, regarding options: it seems to me 4e tried to go for only meaningful options, but they ended up patching the system by adding new (strictly stronger) options and now we've got a degree of system mastery required to make the game work right.

It would be neat if they had the guts to remove bad options, because as it stands, there's a bunch of things in the system right now which serve no useful purpose except to confuse players.

But it's not a universal truth that less options = more fun. It's usually the case that there are some bad options, and removing those removes some "gotcha"s (which IMHO are less than fun) -- but once those bad options are gone, you can't improve the game just by cutting things out.

Finally, good casual RPG design is the same as good casual anything design: keep the options distinct, meaningful, and preferably 7 or fewer of them "in focus" at a time.

Cheers, -- N