Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[Reynard]

I am currently running a Pathjfinder campaign, preparing a Labyrinth Lord (aka B/X) mega-dungeon and reading intently about the 4E Essentials line. The confluence of these things leads me to consider that increased options may not do anything to increase fun, and trimming back and reigning in options may be a sure fire method of increasing fun.

First, increasing options increases complexity on whatever level the options have increased. If it is in character creation, then character creation becomes more complex. If it is in combat options, then combat becomes more complex. Complexity, in turn, tends to slow things down and create confusion, often leading to rules referncing and/or arguments. Not fun, IMO.

Second, increasing options in one area has a trickle down effect on other areas of the game. For example, increasing character generation options means an increased complexity in combat, magic and exploration aspects of play. There's a cascade of potentially unintended consequences for any particular area of expansion of options.

Finally, increasing options may actually narrow possibilities. If, for example, a version of the game has "Fighters", then a "Fighter" could be anything from Roland to Conan to Robin Hood. If, however, the game has Fighters, Barbarians and Rangers, each of these is actually more narrow than the three combined might be. Additionally, the addition of proficiencies/skills/whatever to further define and round out a charcter has the possible side effect of limiting what the character is capable of based on what proficiencies/skills/whatever the character does *not* possess. The same can go for combat, magic and other options.

Thoughts?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The confluence of these things leads me to consider that increased options may not do anything to increase fun, and trimming back and reigning in options may be a sure fire method of increasing fun.

Psychologist Barry Swartz agrees with you.

I think it's important to have meaningful options. Don't offer me options that aren't really significant, just to give me options. Just offer me big, important choices.

 

[Redshirt]

100% agree.

As a player there is nothing I hate more than to have the DM tell me I can play anything I want. A few reasonable restrictions always gets my juices flowing and I will have a character that is much funner to play.

When I DM its the same. Fewer options makes you think a little harder and you come up with a much deeper gaming experience.

 

[Umbran]

Consider: genre and style exist by limiting options. The differences between space opera and cyberpunk, between high and low fantasy, are in restrictions and boundaries.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What is a rule but a restriction? A limit on your freedom. A thou shalt not. And roleplaying games are replete with rules.

 

[DragonLancer]

I've never been a fan of all these options that have flooded game systems over the last several years, D&D especially. While I can understand that after a while the core book/s can get repetative, I don't see why everyone wants loads of options for the characters. I much prefer a keep it simple approach.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, there's a lot to what you say.

In my homebrewed "D&D Jazz" system that I am working on, there are a lot of options but not a lot of choices. Feats are a good example; a 1st level character has 3-4 feats- one general, one racial and 1-2 class-based. But you roll the specifics- roll a general feat; roll two race feats and choose one; and roll two class feats and choose one unless you're a fighter, in which case you choose a category (weapon & shield, two weapon, great weapon, etc) and roll, and you get to do it twice (gaining two feats). Limited choices allow for some customization without pc creation taking five hours.

 

[Umbran]

Consider: poetry. Yes, free verse is all well and good. But look at perhaps the most famous poems: haiku, sonnets, and limericks. All very restricted.

I do not knock the folks who like the blue sky option, with everything under the sun available. I find, however, that I don't get inspired by a blank slate. I get inspired by a framework. I make my best, most interesting (mechanically and in personality) when I wait for all the other players to choose their character types and roles, and then find something interesting to add to that mix.

I find this tends to make me seriously consider character types that wouldn't come to me if you gave me all options available. I don't care if the GM limits things a good deal, as I'd do that to myself anyway

 

[howandwhy99]

What is a rule but a restriction? A limit on your freedom. A thou shalt not. And roleplaying games are replete with rules.

That's a rather negative way to look at it. Rules can also be considered benefits. Thou shalt be able to access Top Secret Materials. Shalt Nots are actually more open in terms of freedom than Thou Shalts though. The first limits a defined course of action, while leaving everything else free. The second limits every option except those enumerated.

Another way to look at rules is as definers. If you don't define rules, you don't have any choices. A rule is a differentiation more than a limitation. Think of language. You are not obligated to use a word according to its' definition in the dictionary, but it greatly increases your ability to be understood if you do.

The backward way of thinking (IMO) is to look at a computer without any programming as having the most freedom for a user because it is not limited by the written software. Because there are no limitations caused by a programmer a user can do anything with it.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

I have been thinking seriously about restricting the races in my Eberron campaign (and I know for sure I'll do so in any Dark Sun campaign I do).

After over two years of playing someone finally took an Elf this last week.