What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Orion]

• All things being equal, humans tend to see 'not making a choice' as morally superior. All things being equal actually understates the case. Quick philosophy website example steal: if you have a runaway train about to crash into a station (killing 10 people) and the only way to stop it would be to throw an old lady in front of the train, many people would opt not to do it. However if you frame the choice as five workers being stuck in the middle of the tracks and the only way to save their lives is to veer the train off into a crowded station, most people would elect to run over the five workers.
  
  This is related to but distinct from the status quo bias and it's such a huge problem with moral philosophy that I'm going to make a separate thread on this one of these days.

There are actually very sound moral and practical reasons to have that preference which I will happily go into if you make the thread.

[Orion]

Fuck it, it looks like this thread turned into the Trolley Problem thread anyway. Frank, I have to disagree with you. When it comes to deciding how to behave in a crisis situation, what's much more important than saving as many lives as possible is making sure that you don't do so in a way which spreads panic and fear, undermines the social construct and erodes the ability of humans to work with other humans. I am certain that a fireman or other emergency worker is never going to decide that the duties of his position require him to assault me and hurl me bodily to my death. Because of that certainty, I am willing to share whatever information I have with rescue workers and to follow their instructions during a crisis. If I am aware that they may be sending me to my death in the name of some greater good, I will have incentives to conceal information and try to create a secret escape route for myself. I'm surprised that you don't get this actually because it's a huge part of what makes the 40K Imperium so incredibly destructive. Chaos and the Tyranids and other bad guys are such incredibly bad news that there are times when nuking a planet probably saves more lives than it kills. But the knowledge that the Empire will nuke your planet if the mood strikes them degrades the populace's incentives to collaborate.

[Ikeren]

People give markedly different answers when the question is phrased "Would you change the track the trolley is on?" than they do when the question is phrased "Which track would you put the trolley on?"

I have not seen this result ever referenced in any study of ethics thus far at university --- a failing of my education which I apologize for (or perhaps, an insufficient reading of the psychology aspects of ethics). Want to let me know the name of the paper where the study was published so I can read it? I love this sort of stuff.

[PhoneLobster]

I am... unimpressed with this thread Lago.

Like a lot of your threads lately you are once again engaging in paranoid, obsessive and impractical hand wringing concern over... what exactly?

It looks to me like you are mostly trying, yet again, to defend a number of unpopular design goals you and Frank are, pretty much, entirely alone in desiring.

Sure humans don't make perfect choices, but I'm sorry, WoF wasn't popular not just the moment it was first described, it was massively unpopular after nine billion pages of you and Frank defending it with every single contradictory angle you could find, it was unpopular after nine million pages of a small community of obsessive rules design and RPG enthusiasts with a long background of experience and interest in the subject dissecting it, and since it was such a vague proposal, many of it's potential implementations, in painful detail.

This is NOT the same thing as studies about candy bars and small children eating broccoli and cheese. You don't get to HAVE a "more fair" or "more objective" hearing than you got, short of throwing your unpopular implementation out into the field against some sort of control implementation and doing a massive objective study of player satisfaction. And unfortunately I strongly suspect that the experts around here (and however much we may be some random bunch of guys on the internet we are about as much experts on the topic as you are going to find anywhere) are most probably right.

The same goes for a number of your other concerns over people not "knowing what they want" that seem to occur the moment they disagree with you and Frank. Let me hold up the recent weapon thread hilarity as an example in which you and Frank AGAIN make some rather laughable claims and demands in just such a manner.

You are projecting some rather wild eyed theories about people not knowing what is good for them. But have you ever considered, that just maybe, with all the experts and practical examples of existing RPGs being stacked against you, that MAYBE you and Frank are the two who don't know what they want? Well. And Shadzar.

We had all hoped you had finished with the WoF threads. But this is CLEARLY another one. Even a lot of the interim ones have been you fighting the WoF thread over again by proxy, seeking to prove with weapons or treasure or EVERY OTHER THING that wanders into your path that REALLY what players want is to surrender freedom over their character actions to random tables provided by the game designer. When IS this going to end? Or do we just have to put up with you posting this SAME thread EVERY week FOREVER.

[Shadow Balls]

If I wanted all of my decisions to be based on randogrind, I would buy Diablo 3. I have no interest in buying Diablo 3, and the thought of a tabletop with the same concepts is beyond laughable.

[Chamomile]

Humans totally are bad at knowing what they want. You know who's even worse? Other humans. This is why, even knowing that humans will regularly make stupid decisions that will screw themselves over, I still support legally allowing them to make those stupid decisions so long as it is their problem and no one else's.

Similarly, if players play the game in a way that turns out not to be very much fun, how about we let them figure that out instead of trying to force them to conform to our idea of what happiness really is? Particularly since what makes one player happy might make another player totally miserable, since they want different things from the game and it is still incredibly easy to make the game cater to both parties. It will take you literally ten seconds to write up the optional "reforge swords into axes" rule, and it cannot possibly make your game any worse objectively because players can just decide not to use it since it is explicitly an optional rule.

[Stubbazubba]

Humans totally are bad at knowing what they want. You know who's even worse? Other humans.

QFT.

Yes, these are well-known psychological conundrums which prove free will is not the best for us, and there are just as many scenarios where rational behavior does not produce the optimal outcome (i.e. Prisoner's Dilemma), but that doesn't mean that we just scrap either of them. The idea that because you can find a few fringe psychological, and most importantly hypothetical, cases where choosing what you want doesn't make you happy does not in the least invalidate "Let people choose what they want," as an axiom of game design, not any less than Arrow's Impossibility Theorem invalidates democratic elections. Try again.

[ModelCitizen]

As counter-intuitive as it seems, people actually get demotivated by having a wide array of meaningful choices. You'd think that giving a student a list from six 18-19th century English Literature books (that they've all read) to write an essay about would make them less happy than a list of twenty books (that they've also all read), but surprisingly enough that's not the case.

"You'd think that giving a 4th edition rogue the choice of two weapons would make them less happy than just letting them choose whatever weapons they want, but surprisingly enough that's not the case."

What the fuck, no. I'm sure whatever paper you read on the subject was very interesting, but if you try to apply this to game design your game will be shit and will insult your players.

[shadzar]

Humans totally are bad at knowing what they want. You know who's even worse? Other humans.

QFT.

Yes, these are well-known psychological conundrums which prove free will is not the best for us

i think something being missed in this if it continues is who is choosing what who wants...

since this isnt in MPSIMS, i assume it is still about RPGs.

that being said what a player wants has nothing to do with those "other humans". a DM is not choosing or providing what a player "wants". a DM is choosing what the world offers...the world the players agreed to upon picking that DM.

which proves the point...the DM they want, doesnt always make them happy.

[A Man In Black]

It's terribly worrying to have shadzar agreeing with you.

[tussock]

No, ModelCitizen, the actual result was more like "Giving a 4th edition Rogue the choice between six weapons is more fun for them than only two weapons, but also more fun than twenty weapons."

Also, it's cool for them if they get to make that choice over and over again, if you get it at the right level of detail. So being proficient in a handful of weapons is a more interesting choice to face in-play than being proficient in thirty of them; but picking six weapons from thirty to be proficient in is a bit of a downer for most folk (that's more interesting if you let them pick one-of-six mid-sized melee weapons, one-of-six missile weapons, one-of-six light weapons, and so on, five times over; which can also work if you just suggest it or categorise the weapon lists that way).

[A Man In Black]

"You'd think that giving a 4th edition rogue the choice of two weapons would make them less happy than just letting them choose whatever weapons they want, but surprisingly enough that's not the case."

What the fuck, no. I'm sure whatever paper you read on the subject was very interesting, but if you try to apply this to game design your game will be shit and will insult your players.

That's just the wrong spot for breadth of weapon choice. For making your character, you're probably best off with something less than a dozen choices for weapons, possibly a bit less than that. When it comes to actually fighting in combat, two or three weapons would be the most you would want to be choosing between on the fly.

There is a reason first-person shooters went from fuck-off arsenals of a dozen-plus weapons to games following in Halo's and TF2's footsteps, where you have two or three weapons all the time.

[Koumei]

There is a reason first-person shooters went from fuck-off arsenals of a dozen-plus weapons to games following in Halo's and TF2's footsteps, where you have two or three weapons all the time.

And yet the last non-shit FPS was Painkiller (which gave you a numpad worth of weapons, like all the other good ones (Doom, Quake, Unreal, Duke 3D, Serious Sam)).

Related to the title of this thread: I want Lago to shut up. There is fair evidence that this would actually make me happy. So there's a hole in his theory.

[DSMatticus]

And yet the last non-shit FPS was Painkiller (which gave you a numpad worth of weapons, like all the other good ones (Doom, Quake, Unreal, Duke 3D, Serious Sam)).

Stop liking what I don't like, etc, etc. Fuck those games, though. Srsly. I can't find anything fun there anymore. Linear shooter where I spend the entire time using the shotgun and the rocket launcher, woo.

[A Man In Black]

And yet the last non-shit FPS was Painkiller (which gave you a numpad worth of weapons, like all the other good ones (Doom, Quake, Unreal, Duke 3D, Serious Sam)).

Related to the title of this thread: I want Lago to shut up. There is fair evidence that this would actually make me happy. So there's a hole in his theory.

IIRC, even the first Painkiller only had five weapons, despite being a retro-throwback. (It'd also be a decent argument for throwing new and shiny schticks at the character rather than having them be "shotgun guy" all their life.)

This is a continuum, though, not a hard on-off switch. Even if you think Lago is full of shit about the whole player agency versus randomness thing, it's a fair point that putting 25 basically-identical weapons in your game comes at a cost. Figuring out the difference between a scimitar and a longsword (or having to learn that there IS a difference) is going to turn off some players.

[ModelCitizen]

FPS weapons don't have much to do with choices in TTRPGs. Using a new FPS weapon requires actual practice time. When you get your shotgun you don't know enough about it to even make a choice until you've run around with it for a level or so.

@Tussock: Speak for yourself. You may not be able to handle picking weapons off the big boy list but lots of people were offended by that design. As I recall it was the first major WTF moment for people watching the 4e previews. When you take people's choices away because you think they're not smart enough to make them, that makes you an arrogant prick and at least part of your potential audience will notice.

[Ice9]

The thing is, this argument pretty much applies to any type of choice in RPGs. Shouldn't the class choice be random or restricted? The feats? Spells? Or for a more practical example - ability scores.

The problem is - we've actually tried exactly that - 3d6, straight down the line, randomized ability scores. And it does all the things you're saying are good - prevents people making decisions they'll later regret, prevents choice paralysis, breaks people out of one-note grooves - and yet most players prefer to assign their scores.

Now sure, short-term vs long-term decisions, but we've had the choice for decades now. Enough time for people to have realized the superior of 3d6-down-the-line and gone back to it. Except ... most people haven't. Which suggests it isn't actually superior.

[A Man In Black]

FPS weapons don't have much to do with choices in TTRPGs. Using a new FPS weapon requires actual practice time. When you get your shotgun you don't know enough about it to even make a choice until you've run around with it for a level or so.

Well, that's not actually true for all FPSes, particularly those where you choose a loadout (Rainbow Six, Counterstrike, and many descendants) or even choose a full-on class (Team Fortress and many games since).

The point is that reframing having your character concept dictated to you by your environment can make it less or more palatable. It's ridiculous that many (particularly older) WW2 shooters had you playing an Allied soldier who used Axis weapons because Axis soldiers dropped ammo for them and that's how you armed yourself. It's entirely acceptable that people play a space marine who shoots aliens with their alien rayguns instead of the mundane human weaponry.

I just bring up FPSes because they offer some interesting parallels.

[shadzar]

The thing is, this argument pretty much applies to any type of choice in RPGs. Shouldn't the class choice be random or restricted? The feats? Spells? Or for a more practical example - ability scores.

class WAS restricted in the past before "player entitlement".

feats didnt always exist at all, so i guess that makes them restricted...

spells weren't freely given.% chance to learn spell...

ability scores wre random.

no matter what you choose, once you are given a lsit, there needs to be a way to pick something ont he list.

ability cores that alter class or race chocies, means that strict random can provide for no option for the player. so if that is the case, jsut assign pre-gens.

the idea of being able to pick a race/class combo, trumps that of straight down ability score rolling.

sometimes the appearance of greater chocie, is more important than greater choice.

you dont get to pick those rolled ability scores, but you DO get to pick where to apply them.

try playing without feats and see how restirctive that is. some people wouldnt know what to do, while others would fel more free.

the game is based on chocies, ues. but it is the control of the characters actions that are important, not its looks.

this is why hair or eye color has NEVER had any sort of game mechanic. nor for the most part did tattoos, until that edition and setting came along...

[ModelCitizen]

Well, that's not actually true for all FPSes, particularly those where you choose a loadout (Rainbow Six, Counterstrike, and many descendants) or even choose a full-on class (Team Fortress and many games since).

There are other issues there too though. The Halo two-weapon scheme had nothing to do option paralysis, it was about making the interface work for a console controller. On a keyboard you have the number keys but a controller can spare about two buttons (next weapon/last weapon). Halo didn't give you fifteen different weapons like Half-Life because it would be a pain in the ass to cycle through them all in mid fight.

If you've played Bioshock say there's a bunch of splicers all clumped up together. The problem isn't "oh god which weapon too many choices," you know you want the rocket launcher. The problem is to get to it you have to cycle past three other weapons and a fucking camera.

[Draco_Argentum]

IIRC, even the first Painkiller only had five weapons, despite being a retro-throwback.

Its ten because the alt fires had nothing to do with the primaries.

The arsenal of weapons is much better for a run and gun shooter. The only reason for restricting the options is if you're aiming for something approximating realistic. Doing it in something like FEAR was actually the most frustrating part of the game. You couldn't use the fun guns very much because carrying a gun that you can't get ammo for is insane.

[Ice9]

class WAS restricted in the past before "player entitlement".

feats didnt always exist at all, so i guess that makes them restricted...

spells weren't freely given.% chance to learn spell...

ability scores wre random.

Exactly my point. D&D did work that way, and then it stopped working that way, and the majority of people went on to versions where you got to pick that stuff. And they've had over a decade to change that decision - most people have not.

If most people pick choice over randomness, and stand by that decision a decade later, then I call that a big point in favor of choice.

[Koumei]

Please don't quote him, Ice. My head hurts whenever I read his stupid drivel.

And regarding "twenty near-identical weapons", that's your problem: you're thinking of three different assault rifles used in World War II, I'm thinking "Enemy-seeking hoverdrone that drills into their heads, gun that fires both ninja stars and lightning, tree-launcher". One of those was actually from Turok 2, and you can probably figure out which.

And sure, that means you have a problem whenever you want any game set in our real wars, but that should just be a sign that such games are shit and they should stop making them. I mean, everyone knows that every WWII game is actually the same fucking game anyway.

So for weapon choices in D&D, at levels 1-3 you want people to care about the differences between the glaive, pike and spear, or longsword, greatsword and scimitar. Then afterwards you should be caring about their magical effect, which should be even more cool and different. After tenth you're choosing between tamed lightning, mirrorshards and ghost cannons.

And as long as random item drops work like Frank proposed: that they are infinite, so you just find a low-level area and farm them until you get what you want (preferably in a way that doesn't involve actually playing it out - maybe you hire illegal planar immigrants), then it works fine. If that isn't how he'd actually do it, then he was providing a false dichotomy (and misleading argument) with the whole "Every time your MC gives you something that he chose, that is one less thing you'll ever get. If it's random, just wait until next time!"

And even then, clearly the ideal option is none of the above: just let the players have the exact shit they want by letting them extract blobs of mana power out of enemy corpses, then run them through their factories to turn them into Brilliant Greensteel Guisarme-Glaives of Demon-Cutting. Because you'll note that the downside mentioned for the wishlist is the "when they don't get what they want" part.

Less pages taken up by tables, less effort for the MC, less lists to keep track of, everyone gets what they want. I am expecting my Nobel prize any minute now.

[shadzar]

an Ausfailian talking about drivel.. and Victorian no less. the only way to make your comment more ironic is if you were from Frankston. then you would have the trifecta of Aussie incompetence.

class WAS restricted in the past before "player entitlement".

feats didnt always exist at all, so i guess that makes them restricted...

spells weren't freely given.% chance to learn spell...

ability scores wre random.

Exactly my point. D&D did work that way, and then it stopped working that way, and the majority of people went on to versions where you got to pick that stuff. And they've had over a decade to change that decision - most people have not.

If most people pick choice over randomness, and stand by that decision a decade later, then I call that a big point in favor of choice.

you keep using the term "D&D", when that is NOT what you mean.

you mean "current WotC RPG product" when you say "D&D".

D&D still works the way i describe, and not everyone moved beyond that. not even the "majority" you claim. you fail to realize, than many people are new and came in under 3.x wherein class choice was just that a choice due to point systems and the like created from AD&D 2.5.

not everyone liked nor moved onto the character point variant. WotC embraced it to give an illusion of choice, and that is wherein the problem lies. it is really an illusion, but people dont understand that.

they have taken to extremes the idea of "player entitlement" and are missing the point of the game.

3rd may have attracted a vast more people to the game, but the question you ahve to ask is did it attract the RIGHT people?

for WotC and getting $$$, maybe yes, but for the game, it seems not.

the designers of the game itself dont like what they have created and you can hear it echoed throughout their posts on forums and blogs. they dont even using the systems as they were written.

so lets think about that for a moment... Frank has a list of 3.x problems one of which is WBL, and another the CR bit and relationship ro ECL, etc...

those ARE what people said they wanted, yet when they got it, they found out it wasnt what they wanted because it didnt work.

they try again with 4th... more streamlining and unified systems, and people complain about bland and boring "classes" that are the same thing with just a new color painted on each one...all classes work the same so why have them?

this IS what people wanted for this "balance" but when they saw it in action, they find out that it doesnt work. well they got what they wanted and didnt like it so weren't happy.

sure some were, and they got others to join, but Essentials proves that enough people weren't happy, jsut like 4th proves that enough people weren't happy with 3.x

even Pathfinder proves that people weren't happy with 3.x, otherwise they would STILL BE PLAYING 3.x instead of moving to Pathfinder.

MANY things have changed in the past decade, and many have not. you jsut need to say what you mean rather than imply a loaded word like D&D. so remember that D&D still exists with those things from my post in it. and it works for plenty, otherwise it wouldnt still be selling.

[Winnah]

The illusion of choice is a psychological mental model that states humans are happy if they believe that have control over their own actions and can exercise free will. If free will is deprived, or seemingly deprived, from an individual, he or she will become resentful or rebellious, even if the choice forced upon him is identical to the one he would have selected of his own accord.

There are several ways to combat the illusion of choice. Here are 3.

Hobson’s Choice: A free choice in which only one option is offered.

Morton’s Fork: Is a choice between two equally unpleasant alternatives (in other words, a dilemma) or two lines of reasoning that lead to the same unpleasant conclusion.

Buridan’s Ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the ass will always go to whichever is closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision to choose one over the other. The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan, whose philosophy of moral determinism it satirizes.

Taking Buridans Ass as a method of combating limited choices, an RPG would need to provide a number of equally valid options for a player to choose from. These options need to appear distinct and of relatively equal value.

"Take it or leave it" is the most patronising option of the three I listed. Useful for negotiating with children, or people you don't like, but not something I want to regularly have forced upon me in a game. Like junk item drops, for example. Forcing a narrative with an apparent Morton's Fork scenario is equally unappealing.