We talk about this a lot, but I got to thinking, maybe we mean different things by this.

For example, when I think of player choice/meaningful choice, in my mind, that means "multiple right answers" where one may be more efficient in one way and another in another etc. One may be more MP efficient while another may be more efficient in number of casts (Cure 1 vs Cure 2 is, in theory, this kind of choice) while another may be more efficient in some other way (e.g. Tetra not taking a GCD).

But a requirement is, that they're all viable. In FFXIV's "damage >>> all" system, this means, in my mind, they need to allow for comparable amounts of damage output. It's why I'm a fan of damage neutral heals. Because if they aren't, then they're (in most cases) "wrong" answers, which means not a "choice".

But from discussing things, I think some people mean something else by this concept. Something to the effect of "choice" should be having one right answer and all the others be wrong in various ways, where the player is rewarded, not with choice, but rather by making the right choice, as all the others are wrong.

To me, this makes little sense - it's like the saying "You can have your free elections as long as I choose all the candidates" where it's a choice in theory but in reality, it's a binary system of being right or everything else being wrong. To me, that isn't really "choice". In PLD's 1-2-3 combo, you have the "choice" to press 1-3-2, sure, but it's very obviously the wrong choice and thus invalid. So is it really "choice" at that point or just "being wrong"?

And how can a choice be meaningful if all but one answer is wrong?

.

In any case, it got me to thinking it's worth asking the question.

Note there are no right/wrong answers, I'm just curious what people think choice/meaningful choice actually means.