the game design of taskmaster: choosing the same thing as another contestant
While games typically reward players for making the most efficient choice to accomplish a goal, there are a few tasks in Taskmaster that penalise contestants for choosing to do the same thing as someone else. These tasks are interesting because they require players to make their choices based on two criteria instead of one, weighing the effectiveness of choosing the most optimal method with the possibility that it might be the most popular one.
In fact, in Taskmaster, it makes better television when two people choose the same item in tasks like these.
An example is in Series 5, Episode 7: “Muster the biggest coconut bobsleigh team. You may only use items from the caravan to secure your coconuts. You’ll be disqualified if you use any item used by another contestant.” In game design, you could refer to the items from the caravan as the decision space: the total available options for the player to choose from.
Although the decision space was finite as there were limited number of items in the caravan, the objects weren’t specifically enumerated and could be combined in various ways. In fact, being creative and removing items that were part of the caravan was an option that cost Bob Mortimer and Sally Phillips, who both used the curtains and were disqualified.
Another task like this is in Series 10, Episode 8: “Drink one full tablespoon of coconut water. If you use the same coconut water extraction method as another contestant, you will be disqualified.” Items available on the table included a straw, a peeler, a hammer, a screwdriver, a c-clamp and a tangerine. But, there was no rule to only use items on the table, so contestants did use other methods. Even so, Daisy May Cooper and Mawaan Rizwan chose the same extraction method and were disqualified.
Number of Choices Depends on Context in Games
The fact that both tasks had at least one pair choose the same item poses an interesting question: what’s the optimal number of choices for Taskmaster to ensure that this happens, for the sake of creating entertaining television?
When designing a game, a designer might ponder the number of choices to present to a player. Too few choices can make the player feel like they don’t have any agency. But, going too far the other way could make players feel overwhelmed.
Of course, this depends on context. The sweet spot for dialogue in cutscenes is usually around two to three options. This prevents players from feeling like they are restricted to one particular on-rails experience, but doesn’t ask too much of them in terms of reading through all the options. However, having only two to three weapon options can feel very restrictive in a game that centres on combat.
Conversely, having an incredible amount of customisation in avatar creation can feel very overwhelming and even be a barrier to starting a game for some players. In game design, having too many options can be called decision fatigue, choice overload or analysis paralysis. Instead of giving the player a feeling of freedom, it overwhelms the player.
This phenomenon of too much choice making decisions more difficult can be seen outside of games, like at a restaurant with too many items on the menu. That’s one of the reasons servers’ recommendations, or a section listing five or six specials, can be very helpful.
Scientific Research on the Correct Number of Choices
A Caltech study analysed the neurological processes behind choice overload, presenting subjects with sets of six, twelve or twenty-four.
Activity was highest for 12-item sets, which were perceived as having ‘the right amount’ of options and was lower for 6-item and 24-item sets, which were perceived as ‘too small’ and ‘too large’, respectively. Enhancing choice set value by adding a dominant option led to an overall increase of activity.1
The conclusion was that a 12-item set was preferable, though researcher Colin Camerer stated that he estimates the ideal number of options is between 8 and 15.2
The excitement of a dominant option seen in this study is especially interesting in the context of Taskmaster, which often presents an easy way of accomplishing the task (the coconut harness that fits eighteen coconuts in the coconut bobsleigh task, or the hammer in the coconut water task) alongside the looming jeopardy that another contestant might choose it, too.
An earlier study in 2001 presented customers with a choice of jams, and found that similarly, a smaller number of choices was more pleasing and likely to result in a sale.
These experiments, which were conducted in both field and laboratory settings, show that people are more likely to purchase gourmet jams or chocolates or to undertake optional class essay assignments when offered a limited array of 6 choices rather than a more extensive array of 24 or 30 choices.3
But perhaps the most compelling argument for the ideal number of choices is around “seven, plus or minus two”. A 1956 study showed that on average, the human brain is able to remember about seven items.4 Seven, therefore, is a good number of options because a person can process just about all of them without getting overwhelmed.
Finding the Optimal Number of Choices
In Taskmaster, with no penalty for choosing the same item as another contestant, consider these priorities:
- Contestants have a sense of freedom and ability to be creative – unlimited choices
- Contestants and viewers are able to process and remember all options – 7 choices, or up to 12 at a stretch
With a penalty for choosing the same item as another contestant, the priority shifts. Taskmaster would want to ensure, for maximum entertainment value:
- High chance of two or more contestants choosing the same item – ??? choices
To find out what’s a good number of choices to present in order to give a high chance that the penalty is enforced, I decided to do some calculations.
Total number of ways that x contestants could choose one choice each with n number of choices = nx
Number of ways that x contestants all choose a different choice when given n number of choices = nPx
Therefore, number of ways more than 1 contestant chooses the same choice = nx – nPx
Applying the Analysis to the Number of Choices in Taskmaster
It’s difficult to analyse the two tasks mentioned above because their decision spaces aren’t clearly enumerated. In the coconut bobsleigh task, contestants were free to use any number of items, in any way, and there’s no definitive list of the items in the caravan. In the coconut water task, there was no instruction to only use the items on the table, therefore opening up the decision space to anything within reach in the time allotted.
However, there are two other Taskmaster tasks with the penalty that are pretty much on the nose about the optimal number of choices.
Duplicate Choices in a Task with One Choice
Series 4, Episode 2: “Without touching the egg or the egg cup, get the egg into the egg cup. You may only use the equipment currently on the table. If you touch a piece of equipment that another contestant touches, you will both receive a 1 minute penalty per piece of equipment touched.”
This task provided a set of 7–8 items (chopstick, Blu Tack, balloon, horse figurine, rice on napkin, bread, straws), of which at least one must be used. If each contestant used one item, this would result in a 79.5–85% chance of at least two picking the same one and incurring the penalty. Of course, Noel Fielding and Joe Lycett both used the slice of bread in exactly the same way, with less than a half a second separating them.
Add this to the fact that contestants could use more than one item and you’ve got a task that almost guarantees that two people will get penalised. Plus, the 7 items matches the number of items a person can recall, so the choice doesn’t feel overwhelming. 7 seems like the right number of options for five players with this goal in mind, and Taskmaster got it just right.
Duplicate Choices in a Task with Two Choices
Series 4, Episode 1 (live task): “Make the most juice. You must pick one fruit and one tool. If you pick the same tool as someone else, you must juice blindfolded. If you pick the same fruit as someone else, you must juice one-handed. If you pick the same fruit and tool as someone else, you must juice blindfolded, one-handed and bouncing up and down.”
A more interesting case is the live task involving juicing a fruit in an unconventional way. From what I could see, there were four tools (shoe, tweezers, hammer, string) and five fruits (pineapple, grapes, banana, lime, coconut). Because it’s more fun to watch if at least one pair is juicing blindfolded, the choice of tools guaranteed this as there were fewer tools options than contestants. To change up the number of options, this task offered five options for fruits, still a 96% chance that at least two contestants would juice one-handed. Sure enough, both of these outcomes occurred.
As a bonus, there’s about a 42% chance that two contestants would pick exactly the same tool and fruit, which did not happen. (One could argue that the banana was not a real choice, which would bring this probability up to 50%!)
Overall, this task ensures an entertaining viewing experience for the live studio audience. It’s cleverly designed to ensure that the penalties are incurred but provides enough choice and agency for the contestants to make the task feel strategic and interesting to watch.
Understanding Probability Based on the Number of Choices in Game Design
Creating tables and graphs to understand how tweaking your game can affect the player’s experience can be very beneficial for game designers. In this case, understanding how the number of choices will impact the probability of duplicate choices amongst contestants does not only apply to Taskmaster, but also to various scenarios in other games.
In a video game where customisation is key, you might want to increase the probability of unique choices. Or, in a board game where conflict is created by trying to conquer territories, you might want to increase the chances that players land on the same area.
For more analysis of game design in the television show Taskmaster, read my series The Game Design of Taskmaster.
References Cited
- Reitskaja, Elena, Axel Linder, Rosemarie Nagel, Richard A. Andersen and Colin F. Camerer. “Choice overload reduces neural signatures of choice set value in dorsal striatum and anterior cingulate cortex.” Nature Human Behaviour 2 (2018): 925-935. Web. 9 September 2024.
- Velasco, Emily. “Scientists Uncover Why You Can’t Decide What to Order for Lunch.” News. Caltech, 1 October 2018. Web. 9 September 2024.
- Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper. “When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6) (2001): 995-1006. Web. 9 September 2024.
- Miller, George A. “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.” Psychological Review 63(2) (1956): 81-97. Web. 9 September 2024.
