<p>This question seems to arise out of a slight terminological confusion. Empirical studies of human <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making" rel="nofollow">decision-making</a></strong> in particular are not covered by decision theory. <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory" rel="nofollow">Decision theory</a></strong> is the mathematical study of strategies for optimal decision-making between options involving different risks or expectations of gain or loss depending on the outcome. These sometimes overlap, such as in economics, but one need not use decision <em>theory</em> to study decision <em>making</em>.</p>

<p>Decision theory could conceivably have some uses in game design, such as identifying dominant strategies (strategies that are always optimal, regardless of what any other player does), but <strong>decision theory takes the game rules as a given</strong>. Hence, while it can help formalize the mechanics of a set of rules once they are designed, it doesn't have a way to actually generate rules. Decision theory is not so much helpful in designing game rules as in evaluating them.</p>

<p>You may be interested in what's called <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design" rel="nofollow">mechanism design theory</a></strong>, or reverse game theory. In contrast to decision theory, mechanism design theory is designed to work 'forwards' rather than 'backwards.' Instead of taking the rules of the game (or mechanism) as a given, <strong>mechanism design theory takes the goal as a given and finds a suitable mechanism</strong>. This seems to more closely fit what the question is looking for.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-23T08:37:28.400Z
2015-04-23T08:37:28.400Z
Christian Hummeluhr
<p>I've done research over the last year in game design by reading some of the most well-known books in the field. Making interesting decisions is one of the fundamental elements of fun in games. I'm also learning( still a novice ) about cognition through two classes I'm taking the semester, Psychology of HCI and Human Factors Engineering. </p>

<p>It seems that what is said about decision making in cognitive psychology could also apply to the decisions we make in games. There's definitely choice and uncertainty while making these choices in games. </p>

<p>It seems one of the hardest parts of game design is coming up with game mechanics that cause the player to make interesting decisions based on these game mechanics. </p>

<p><strong>Could studying decision making/theory/analysis possibly help with this process of creating good game mechanics where interesting decisions emerge from the player analyzing and making decisions based on these mechanics?</strong></p>

<p>It seems obvious that this would be the case, but here recently I talked to someone in the psychology department who has a lot of experience in the subject of decision making who told me that it's not the same thing. They said decision making in the cognitive psychology realm isn't the same as decision making in games. They said you make weighted choices based on your options while playing games, which seems the same to me. But I'm still a novice in cognitive psychology so I feel I must trust the expert. </p>

<p>This is my attempt to get a second opinion.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-31T15:14:53.327Z
I was just reading a paper on decision making and am wondering if the theory part of decision making is about how we can improve decision making and what I'm wanting to know is how we can offer interesting decisions which does sound like two different things.
Joey Green
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-31T16:17:41.453Z
What do you mean by the decision making in game? Could you provide an example? But as a general comment, for practical issues in soft sciences most of the time practice beats theory. Maybe the latter can be an inspiration (e.g. I saw a paper on how to design a FPS level to make someone feel overwhelmed, when going back and forth in _We don't go through  Ravenholm_ in Half-Life 2; I cannot find it now though).
Piotr Migdal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-31T17:54:59.383Z
Take tic-tac-toe for example, if your goal is to win then when you place your x or o you have a decision to make as to where to place it so that you're closer to winning. There's information to weigh such as the board state.
Joey Green
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-31T18:12:28.980Z
OK, I see. However, it that case there are many other psychological things - including feedback you get. So it's more in psychology of games and of learning, than pure decision-making. However I doubt if, from a general point of view, one can say something more than "it shouldn't be to obvious or too random, and one should learn something by reaction (of the environment or opponent) if the decision was good".
Piotr Migdal
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-11-16T09:06:46.423Z
agree with Piotr; in a well-structured game, it is possible to determine optimal or normative play, and perhaps assess how and why people deviate from normative strategies. but this doesn't tell us anything about what decisions are "interesting". overall, im still as bit confused as to whats being asked.
Jeff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-11-16T15:31:38.500Z
I've come to the conclusion that decision theory doesn't provide much or at least it depends on the game. Hard-core board type game maybe, but angry birds no. I think what Jeff is saying is more interesting, which is how do we figure out the strategies that people form, why, and how can we help people form the correct strategies.
Joey Green
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-23T16:39:22.500Z
From the various games I've played, it seems like game design takes into account more the psychology of reward than the psychology of decision-making, but I've yet to see any formal linking of the two.  It would be an interesting read.
Krysta
<terminology><decision-making><video-games><game-theory>
Is decision making/theory/analysis applicable to game design?
Joey Green
# Is decision making/theory/analysis applicable to game design?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-10-31)

I've done research over the last year in game design by reading some of the most well-known books in the field. Making interesting decisions is one of the fundamental elements of fun in games. I'm also learning( still a novice ) about cognition through two classes I'm taking the semester, Psychology of HCI and Human Factors Engineering.

It seems that what is said about decision making in cognitive psychology could also apply to the decisions we make in games. There's definitely choice and uncertainty while making these choices in games.

It seems one of the hardest parts of game design is coming up with game mechanics that cause the player to make interesting decisions based on these game mechanics.

**Could studying decision making/theory/analysis possibly help with this process of creating good game mechanics where interesting decisions emerge from the player analyzing and making decisions based on these mechanics?**

It seems obvious that this would be the case, but here recently I talked to someone in the psychology department who has a lot of experience in the subject of decision making who told me that it's not the same thing. They said decision making in the cognitive psychology realm isn't the same as decision making in games. They said you make weighted choices based on your options while playing games, which seems the same to me. But I'm still a novice in cognitive psychology so I feel I must trust the expert.

This is my attempt to get a second opinion.

**Tags:** terminology, decision-making, video-games, game-theory

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I was just reading a paper on decision making and am wondering if the theory part of decision making is about how we can improve decision making and what I'm wanting to know is how we can offer interesting decisions which does sound like two different things.  
> **username_1**: What do you mean by the decision making in game? Could you provide an example? But as a general comment, for practical issues in soft sciences most of the time practice beats theory. Maybe the latter can be an inspiration (e.g. I saw a paper on how to design a FPS level to make someone feel overwhelmed, when going back and forth in _We don't go through  Ravenholm_ in Half-Life 2; I cannot find it now though).  
> **username_0**: Take tic-tac-toe for example, if your goal is to win then when you place your x or o you have a decision to make as to where to place it so that you're closer to winning. There's information to weigh such as the board state.  
> **username_1**: OK, I see. However, it that case there are many other psychological things - including feedback you get. So it's more in psychology of games and of learning, than pure decision-making. However I doubt if, from a general point of view, one can say something more than "it shouldn't be to obvious or too random, and one should learn something by reaction (of the environment or opponent) if the decision was good".  
> **username_2**: agree with Piotr; in a well-structured game, it is possible to determine optimal or normative play, and perhaps assess how and why people deviate from normative strategies. but this doesn't tell us anything about what decisions are "interesting". overall, im still as bit confused as to whats being asked.  
> **username_0**: I've come to the conclusion that decision theory doesn't provide much or at least it depends on the game. Hard-core board type game maybe, but angry birds no. I think what username_2 is saying is more interesting, which is how do we figure out the strategies that people form, why, and how can we help people form the correct strategies.  
> **username_3**: From the various games I've played, it seems like game design takes into account more the psychology of reward than the psychology of decision-making, but I've yet to see any formal linking of the two.  It would be an interesting read.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-04-23. Score: 3

This question seems to arise out of a slight terminological confusion. Empirical studies of human **[decision-making](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making)** in particular are not covered by decision theory. **[Decision theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory)** is the mathematical study of strategies for optimal decision-making between options involving different risks or expectations of gain or loss depending on the outcome. These sometimes overlap, such as in economics, but one need not use decision *theory* to study decision *making*.

Decision theory could conceivably have some uses in game design, such as identifying dominant strategies (strategies that are always optimal, regardless of what any other player does), but **decision theory takes the game rules as a given**. Hence, while it can help formalize the mechanics of a set of rules once they are designed, it doesn't have a way to actually generate rules. Decision theory is not so much helpful in designing game rules as in evaluating them.

You may be interested in what's called **[mechanism design theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_design)**, or reverse game theory. In contrast to decision theory, mechanism design theory is designed to work 'forwards' rather than 'backwards.' Instead of taking the rules of the game (or mechanism) as a given, **mechanism design theory takes the goal as a given and finds a suitable mechanism**. This seems to more closely fit what the question is looking for.


---

