MAXCONSEQUENCES is a standard constant that defines the maximum number of consequences allowed for each role. Its current value is 16. In this essay, I propose to consider reducing it to a value of 8.
There are really only two reasons to reduce the value of MAXCONSEQUENCES. The first concerns screen space in the Erasmotron. The more consequences we permit, the more screen space must be allocated to their display. This hits us in three places. First, the consequence box, which can currently hold eight consequences, has to include a scroll bar to permit the viewing of more consequences. This is a minor problem. Second, the screen test must include enough space to show all 16 bars in its bar chart. This is also a minor problem, as we are functioning just fine so far; the only problem is that we have little room for expansion. The biggest problem comes with the script editor. Any role with lots of consequences is more difficult to read.
The primary reason arises from the difficulty that the storybuilder will have in balancing more than 8 inclination equations. Even I would get confused keeping track of that many equations. Moreover, there's the magic rule of seven: keep lists down to seven items or less. This strikes me as compelling.
Of course, storybuilders will object to restrictions on their freedom to create. How severe would such a restriction be? Let's look at Laura's current storyworld. Here's a sideways histogram of the consequence counts for her existing roles:
0 €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
1 €€€€€€€
2 €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
3 €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
4 €€€€€
5 €€€€€€€€€€€€
6 €€€€
7 €€€€€€
8 €€
9 €
10 €
11 €
Thus, restricting her to eight consequences would require her to redesign three roles out of 100. I don't think that's egregious. But let's look at the case that would be most strongly affected: ChallengeHot. Its consequence list is as follows:
Conciliate
CryOverAbuse
Ridicule
ChallengeHot
HitEasy
HitHard
AttemptFlee
ShootAt
StrikeAt
ShootInAir
AttemptDisengage
What would be lost if three of these consequences had to go? I don't know; that's really Laura's call. But I believe that three of these consequences could be pruned without serious damage to the dramatics of the situation.
Remember, too, that a storybuilder who really needs more than eight options can always break a long list into smaller parts. For example, Laura could break the response up into two roles, Challengee-Unarmed and Challengee-Armed. Some care must be taken here, because role formulae that rely on personality traits or relationships will yield unreliable results with a human player.
Which brings me to another factor to consider: the player also must consider all of these options. Too long a menu is bad design.
Lastly, there is no reason why we must go all the way down to eight consequences. We could go down to 11, with absolutely no impact on the current storyworld. Or we could go down to 10, with only a minor impact. Any reduction will help; but I think that going all the way down to eight is the best choice.