This is part one of a multi-part series. Links to additional installments in this series will be linked here when they become available.

Most interaction with a game can be boiled down to a user doing one of two things: executing action(s), or making decision(s). Actions are usually simple inputs, something like “move right” or “shoot an enemy with your weapon.” Sometimes, these are qualified by additional conditionals: if you shot your weapon, did you hit in the head? Headshots and critical hits are probably the most prolific of execution-oriented gameplay, intentionally rewarding you for executing something otherwise difficult to do. Some other games reward pacing-based execution, the most common of which is probably the combat style implemented by the Arkham series. Execution oriented gameplay can be either quite long, or very short; however, by its nature, it often lends itself to more action-y genres such as FPS, platformers, or more combat-heavy RPGs.

While execution oriented gamplay is often more quick to give you a response to your inputs, decision based gameplay usually has you operating on a significantly longer timescale. Gameplay featuring this style often is found in strategy games (real time or otherwise), where making a decision locks you onto a specific path of gameplay actions that you need to complete to resolve your decision’s consequences, both positive and negative. By nature, decision making oriented gameplay also leaves you many more options both as a developer and a player. It’s rare to find execution based gameplay that presents either a problem with more than one correct answer from the player, or a player action with more than one possible resolution. Decision based gameplay, in contrast, can instead offer multiple paths to the same end, each with its own set of strengths, weaknesses, and other nuances.

For example, take StarCraft. A titan of the RTS genre, StarCraft starts out every player on an equal footing (or close to it). You always start with 12 workers and a base, and are basically told “Go.” From there on out, every single action you make in the game is a weighted choice. Do you choose to go heavy into your economy, and attempt to win later in the game with stronger (or more numerous) units, or do you attempt to raid your enemy early and cripple them with one swift strike? Even within my very limited example, there was a chained choice – you choose to go for a strong economy, which then gives you a choice: do you out-tech your opponent, or do you simply outnumber them by being able to outproduce them?

Obviously, most titles don’t rely on solely one mechanism or the other, but instead use varying amounts of each. Strategy games, especially real-time ones, often have a layered approach in which the player can make a series of actions to build units, research technologies, etc., which when done in a specific sequence constitute a decision to do a certain thing on a longer timescale. Some more action-oriented games incorporate smaller, shorter timescale decision making, forcing you to make split-second choices. Usually, these choices are less about which is going to give you the best reward – that is a constant, but not always an easily achievable one. For example, take this hypothetical: you’re playing an FPS, and an enemy player pops out around the corner facing you. There’s one correct action here, and that’s to fire back (execution), but where to fire back is up to you. Clearly, if you can guarantee the headshot, that would be the best choice for where to place your rounds; but there’s a much better chance that your shots connect if you aim center mass. Aiming there will result in you taking a few more hits to kill, but you’re more assured to actually get the hits than you would be taking the more randomized chances to go for the head. That small choice is a decision, just not one with quite as much impact as a strategy in an RTS might be.

So where does WoW tie in to all this? I’ll walk through WoW’s overall gameplay design for execution vs decision making in Part 2.