Last week, I had just 8 hours to design a combat system for a client. I’m fast, but that wasn’t enough time to design a core gameplay system. However… It was 𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 enough time to design 3 of them!

Surprisingly, and there’s some science on this, designing 3 solutions often takes less time and mental stress than 1.

By creating 3 designs, we spend much less time angsting with ourselves about whether an idea is worth pursuing. We just pursue it.

I don’t worry about whether I should do a safe, reliable approach or an exciting and creative one. I work out both. In the process, I often find ways to make the safe approach more exciting, or ways to reduce the risks of the more exciting design while keeping what made it special.

But wait, there’s more!

Designing 3 ideas is an ego-cheat. Got negative feedback on one of your designs? Well, that’s expected. At most one of these designs wins, we need to consider their pros/cons.

Plus, it’s just one of your 3 ideas. Criticism isn’t hitting all your work at once, just 1/3 at a time. You’re spreading out your emotional investment to avoid getting nuked by a fireball. Of course I got a D&D reference in there.

So when I had 8 hours to figure out a core gameplay system, I spent 2 hours on research, and 6 hours working out 3 distinct proposals that would each work for the key goals, and have different trade-offs for the project’s “sidequests”.

It’s great for pitching too. Many executives and leads feel obligated to add value to the process when you pitch them ideas. Often this results in them feeling obligated to poke holes or demand changes. When you give them 3 choices instead, they already have an engaging decision to make; and it can get you way more info on what they’re resonating with in a shorter period of time.