Reducing Options to Increase Fun

[MichaelSomething]

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.

 

[Umbran]

That's a rather negative way to look at it.

Doug can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he means it like a bad thing. I think he means it as an affirmation that restrictions aren't necessarily bad.

A rule is a way things work. If there's a rule for it, it works like the rule, and no other way. Be it a rule that allows or disallows, it is still a restriction on how the game works.

 

[Umbran]

If less options equal more fun ...

That wasn't what the OP said.

"...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"

Restricting options MAY (possibly, but not certainly) increase fun.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I think the complaints about options with 4E core were more about missing "traditional" D&Disms. And 3.x martial classes options were based in part at least on what I said above about options not taken turning into restrictions on activity. Finally, railroading isn't really the sort of limiting options I was referring to but it is worth discussing: every time we have a sandbox versus railroad discussion, there are people that point out that sometimes the limited options of an "adventure path" can be preferable to complete freedom.

 

[IronWolf]

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.

There are different types that play the game. Some want options, some would be just as happy with fewer options. Some people like options, but want quality options and become discouraged at all of the poor options to wade through.

So while some of us may find things more fun with fewer options there are certainly going to be players and DMs that want all the options available to them they can get their hands on. It doesn't have to be a right way or a wrong way. People's tables are just different.

 

[howandwhy99]

Doug can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he means it like a bad thing. I think he means it as an affirmation that restrictions aren't necessarily bad.

A rule is a way things work. If there's a rule for it, it works like the rule, and no other way. Be it a rule that allows or disallows, it is still a restriction on how the game works.

That makes sense. I think the fun aspect mentioned can be increased by more elegant rule design. Low rule count, high complexity or game state count. By focusing on the strategic element of game design where the participants plan within the framework of the rules as many moves ahead as they can foresee, a few rules can enable a far greater complexity and fun for the player. All without the burden of mass rule memorization or high learning curve.

 

[RodneyThompson]

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.

This is certainly true, though trying to nail down what a meaningful choice is can be tricky, because everyone has a different definition of what meaningful is. One thing I liked about the way we did Saga Edition (and one of the things I think Essentials allows us to do) is let players opt-in to their preferred level of options. To use a Saga Edition example, everyone gets talents and feats, but some people can opt-in to the Force Powers options, some people can opt-in to starship maneuvers, etc.

Another major factor is not just how many options, but where those options sit in the game. There are character-building options, and in-play options, both of which have an impact on different parts of the game (in many ways, RPGs are two games in one--character building, and actual play). You want to have meaningful options in both places, but the number of options you're juggling at any given time is an imprecise science at best, again partly due to player preference and comfort levels.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That's a rather negative way to look at it.

I am in a fairly 'anti-rules' frame of mind atm. I veer back and forth. Generally after using a lot of rules heavy systems I end up hating rules for a while.

 

[malraux]

For something like RPGs, there are really two types of options. Away from the table options and at the table options. I really don't mind away from the table complexity, assuming it stays manageable. Choosing among different +4 weapons in 3e, for example. There's a crazy number of various modifications to weapons, each with its own extra damages and mods. But once you select something, your choices at the table are much more reasonable.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Wait, are you guys trying to define fun?



For me though, simplicity or complexity in available character options isn't really as big a factor as how the group itself plays.

Can you have more fun playing Checkers or Carcassonne?