Choices, Information, and Meaning

When I wrote this post on the Fallacy of Freedom, I mention that players want their choices to matter but I realize that I haven't quite defined what a choice that matter is. So let me continue my dive into game design about player motivation.

Let's define terms:

• A choice is any time a player is presented two or more options.
• A choice can be meta (outside the game) or narrative (within the game)
  
• A non-choice is anytime a player is presented two or more options, but one choice is clearly and objectively correct.
• A false choice is anytime a player makes a choice where all outcomes are essentially the same.
• A choice is meaningful if all options have tangible and measurable consequences.
  
• A choice is informed if the players have the ability to reasonably predict the result of each option.

Choices are extremely common. By the very nature of the game, players must make choices on a regular basis. The question of whether to go forward or backward in a dungeon is a choice. Choices define the game, which is why I like to think about things in terms of the choices offered to the player. Note that I split choices between meta and narrative. Neither are inherently bad or good and both have their times to exist, though it can be bad when a meta reason is used for a narrative choice (this is called metagaming). Choosing a class is a meta choice and there's nothing wrong with that.

Non-choices are an interesting topic because they aren't choices. If option A is leagues and bounds better than option B, then you aren't making a choice. You choose A. There's nothing wrong with presenting non-choices. Sometimes there is merit in making the players realize that option B is bad, but I do think it's bad to try and trick players into picking option B.

False choices are bad. The standard false choice is the party coming to a fork in the road. To the left there is an ogre, to the right is the same ogre. The GM has decided the party is going to fight an ogre, and this their best answer is Schrödinger ogre. False choices are essentially a lie, and at a point it's better to simply not provide a choice than it is to provide a choice where all options have the same outcome.

Now we come to the two interesting terms: meaningful choices and informed choices. Let's start with meaningful choices.

You might be inclined to think that all choices are meaningful, but this is false. Plenty of choices have no meaningful consequences. The choice of whether or not to buy supplies or weapons first is mostly meaningless. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist and it surely doesn't make it bad, but it is still meaningless.

Note that I define a meaningful choice as having tangible, visible consequences. If a choice has no visible consequences, then to the players it has no consequences. If the players fail to stop a bad guy and the bad guy takes over a region they never seem then this doesn't mean anything to the players. It is essentially window-dressing. If that bad guy instead burnt down their base of operations, suddenly their actions have visible consequences, and the choice feels meaningful.

Information and informed choices present an interesting topic because what exactly is the ability to reasonably predict an outcome. Well what it doesn't mean is that the players need perfect knowledge of all outcomes. They don't, they simply need a good guess as to the result of their choices. As long as the players have some half-decent idea of what the consequences of their actions might be, they can make informed choices. The choice between dungeon A and dungeon B with no information about either is often not a choice: it is random selection, which limits player agency (or autonomy, as I called it before).

My post on the Fallacy of Freedom boils down to players wanting agency, not pure freedom. Agency, then, is generated by the ability to make meaningful and informed choices. Choices without meaning can be fun, but they have limited application and can get dull fast, and choices without information often boil down to random selection, but a choice with both meaning and information is one the players can actually make. A good choice has no correct answers and equally valid options.

Let me provide an example. The party knows of two dungeons. The first has an ancient sword that can destroy evil, and the second has a necromancer threatening to destroy the town the party lives in. These are options with measurable consequences, thus the choice is meaningful. The party has heard of the sword through various rumors, and they have met the necromancer and heard his evil plan before. This is the information the party needs to act on those choices. This is a good meaningful and informed choice.

In conclusion, while it is fine to provide non-meaningful and non-informed choices, and it is at times reasonable to provide a non-choice, the primary choices in a game should be meaningful and informed.