Magic Number Seven

When we think about games in general, and D&D in particular, a lot of us have the complaint nowadays that "the game is too complicated". But can we agree on how "complicated" something really is? One thing I wish game designers would consider is concrete research from cognitive science about how people process information (and how much they can deal with at once).

Consider the following Wikipedia article, "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

In this article, you'll see two related (apparently coincidental) research observations. (1) Working memory capacity for most adults is in the range of 7+/-2 objects (i.e., 5 to 9 objects). That is, people can consider about 7 separate entities at once and make a choice among them at a high level of functionality. (For specific material, the limit may be 7, or 6, or 5). Beyond this limit, mental functioning rapidly drops off. (2) Short-term memory capacity is also 7+/-2 when measured for English speakers memorizing, say, a string of random digits. For example, the book Modern Structured Analysis recommends a 5 to 9 limit on the number of subroutines called from the main block of any computer program (for the convenience of maintenance programmers).

Now, I'm sure that lots of us (possibly reading this) may personally skew on the high side of these numbers. I bet that math- and computer-oriented folks have higher working memory capacities, possibly significantly so. (The guy who inspired the Rain Main character could instantly "chunk", or count, a whole box of toothpicks spilled on the floor, for example; so it varies a great deal by individual.) A lot of caution must be taken in over-expanding the results of research like this, but nontheless, it serves as an excellent starting point for discussions of "how much is too much?".

So, how many options are reasonable for a person to consider at once in a D&D-like game? I would argue for: Seven, plus or minus two. Best would be a number of about 5 or less, which is easily workable by everybody. Slightly less optimal would be a count of 6 or 7, which is parsable by most people. At most 8 or 9 options would be okay, which seems to tax most functioning adults, and feels less like fun and more like work to a lot of us.

Consider this in the context of OD&D and how many choices have to be made when a person creates a new character:
- Abilities: 6 (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha). Excellent.
- Races: 4 (Men, Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits). Perfect.
- Classes: 4 (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief). Perfect.
- Alignment: 3 (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic). Perfect.
- Armor: 5 (leather, chain, plate, shield, helmet). Perfect.
- Weapons (Melee): 13. Too many to consider at once.
- Weapons (Ranged): 5. Perfect.
- Mounts: 5. Perfect.
- Wizard Spells (1st-level): 8. Acceptable.
- Cleric Spells (1st-level): 6. Excellent.

For all of the key considerations, OD&D just happened to appear "magically" with the perfect number of choices to be interesting and enticing, but not overwhelming to the brand-new player. I particularly find the initial options of 4 races, 4 classes, and 3 alignments to be extremely mentally satisfying. There are just three main categories here, each with a perfectly manageable number of options, but generating 48 different possible starting characters! (Assuming all race-class-alignment combinations are permitted.) That's a lot of variety blooming from a very small and manageable number of choices.

Compare this to the current state of D&D. We've always maintained the 6 core abilities (with a lot of resistance when AD&D tried to insert a 7th for "Comeliness"). In the 3E PHB we have:
- Abilities: 6 (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha). Excellent.
- Races: 7. Acceptable, but borderline for some people.
- Classes: 11. Too many to consider at once.
- Alignment: 9. Almost too many to remember.
- Skills: 45. Far too many to consider at once.
- Feats: 74. Far too many to consider at once.
- Armor: 21. Too many to remember at once.
- Weapons (Melee): 56. Far too many to consider at once.
- Weapons (Ranged): 14. Too many to consider at once.
- Mounts: 8. Almost too many to remember.
- Wizard Spells (to 1st-level): 58. Far too many to consider at once.
- Cleric Spells (to 1st-level): 38. Far too many to consider at once.

Obviously, expert players have a working knowledge of almost all these options, but it's probably been built up over years or decades of play experience -- and they probably mentally "chunk" this material into certain categories (warrior vs. spellcaster classes, ethical vs. moral alignments, skills by ability, feats for fighters vs. items vs. metamagic, spells by attack/defense/utility or school) that may not be totally explicit in the rules.

OD&D has a score of 9:1 (say, 90%) categories ok:not-ok under this "magic number seven" cognitive rule analysis. Meanwhile, 3E D&D has a score of 4:8 (say, 33%) under the same analysis. OD&D seems to hit the "sweet spot" for working memory considerations in character creation, whereas 3E is clearly far, far more complicated. (Consider also something unrelated to character creation, like the number of giant or dragon types: OD&D with 6 dragon types, 3E D&D with 10.)

I truly wish that the D&D designers had the capacity to focus very specifically on the new-player experience, and think about what the ideal setup would be if we truly honestly wanted to expand the hobby, and make it accessible to everyone (not just old players and math whizzes). If this were the case, the options that lured us all into OD&D in the first place would be an excellent foundation to build on.

Here's some brainstorming in that regard. Let's say 1st level creation is set up to be accessible by any player who's never even heard of D&D or RPG's whatsoever. Provide the 6 abilities, 4 races, and 4 class options from OD&D (as above). Provide limited types of armor, weapons, and spells (again as per OD&D). Give fighters feat-like options, around 5 or so at 1st level (maybe melee/ archer/ mounted/ swashbuckler types); make sure that thief skills are limited to 6 or so to be memorable.

As levels go up, allow more options to be unlocked. More spells at higher levels (again like OD&D), as players get to know their spellcasters better. Feats (such as for fighters) allow access to more feats in a tree-like fashion. Prestige classes may still be digestible in limited numbers. Expert players should be encouraged to start play with heroes of 3rd level or higher, having more of these options on the table to begin with. (Note how the upcoming Star Wars Saga rules start characters at 3 hit dice.)

But at the same time, the branching options can't be so many that statting out high-level NPC's becomes unmanageable for the DM. Allow only a total of 7 or so feats absolute maximum, so that DMs can slot them out mentally when needed. A total of 7 or so spell levels is a good choice (see OD&D: a perfect 6 spell levels vs. 3E D&D: a swollen 10 levels). NPCs shouldn't need more than 7+/-2 magic items at most, nor should any monster have more than 5 to 9 special abilities at most.

Regardless of the actual choices or construction of the game (or even the specific cognitive research studies used to support them), rules-of-thumb like these would be extremely useful for determining when "more is too much", and when new added options serve as repellant to part of the hypothetical new-player base.