This is an idea that I've had before, but wasn't able to articulate very well. But now I think I can articulate it better.

I'm calling this a 'decision-point' in design. The principle is that players will focus on areas of design that force them to make a decision. Give the players a choice, and they'll think about it. Don't give them choice, and they won't. Simple enough, eh? Is this painfully obvious and its just me that's finally getting it?

For example, if you want a game to be 'about' Fear, then you somehow have to force the players to make a decision about Fear.

I'm also wondering about the possible implications of the idea for design purposes.

A common idea that gets expressed here is that if you write a rule about something, the existance of the rule will bring attention to that thing. For example, writing a rule bout fear in combat will make the game somehow 'about' being afraid in combat, or at least that idea will play into things. But what I wonder, if my decision -point idea is true, is it the existence of a rule that's important, or is it the fact that the rule forces a decision from the player?

Along these lines, if my idea is true, then if the rule automates a response, the players won't focus on the 'thing.' In other words, the existance of a rule by itself is not enough. For example, if the rule states that there's an automatic fear check whenever a character is hit, and also automates the response, then the players won't focus on fear in combat, since they have no choice in the matter.(*)

[(*) Now, knowing about the fear-check rule may influence player's decision beforehand about whether or not to get into combat in the first place, but once combat in underway, players won't spend much thought on fear.]

What does everyone think about this?

Hi, Tim.

I've got to agree that decisions are vital, especially for Gamism and Narrativism. You've got to be able to make decisions and know their likely consequences.

Have you looked at This Thread where Ron talks about how System needs bounce and spin in order to maintain interest? In this metaphor, your "decision-point" is where the tennis player actually tries to hit the ball. If the player doesn't have to hit the ball for a long time (i.e., long time between decision-points), then he gets bored. Does this link up what you are trying to say?