Why Old-School D&D May Be One of the Best Cognitive Workouts You Can Do

I have become increasingly convinced that one of the richest cognitive workouts you can do may involve a handful of dice, some graph paper, and pretending there are goblins on the other side of a door.

That sounds ridiculous until you think about what is actually happening at the table. You are not just "playing a game." You are trying to figure out where you are, what you know, what you don't know, what the people around you know, what the creatures in front of you might want, how much time you have, how many resources you can afford to spend, whether the obvious solution is actually a trap, and whether the entire plan should be abandoned before it gets everyone killed.

And if you're playing old-school Dungeons & Dragons, that last part matters. A lot.

Old-school D&D was built around a very different assumption than most modern games:

The world is not arranged around you.

The dragon is not there because somebody calculated that your party is finally the right level to fight a dragon. The dungeon does not guarantee that every room contains a problem you are expected to solve through combat. You can meet something far stronger than you are. You can negotiate. You can hide. You can run away. You can avoid the encounter entirely.

The game is not simply asking: Which ability on your character sheet solves this? It is asking: What do you think is happening, and what are you going to do about it?

That is a very different cognitive demand. And the more I have looked at the research on cognitive health, aging, gameplay, executive function, memory, spatial reasoning, creativity, and rehabilitation, the more interesting that distinction has become.

Because the real question is not whether D&D "uses your brain." Of course it does.

The better question is:

What is your brain actually being asked to do?

Why Old-School D&D Is Different

I am not talking about D&D in the broadest possible sense. I am specifically talking about old-school-style D&D, or what is now commonly called OSR play. The style I use is built around a simple idea:

The player should solve the situation before the character sheet solves the situation.

If a player says, "I roll Investigation," that is not really a plan. What are you investigating? Where are you looking? Why there?

Suppose there are scratches on the floor beneath a tapestry. If you say, "I pull the tapestry aside and check whether the wall behind it moves," you may not need to roll anything.

You noticed something in the world. You formed a hypothesis. Then you tested it.

That is the point.

Old-school play deliberately pushes the game toward exploration, information gathering, time and resource management, equipment use, terrain, negotiation, retreat, faction reasoning, and consequences that persist beyond the immediate scene.

In Iron Lantern, the rules I developed for this style, players are repeatedly asked to gather information, discuss alternatives, choose an actual method, act under uncertainty, expend resources, observe what happens, and then update their understanding of the world.

By the end of the rulebook, the entire game can be reduced to one loop:

WORLD -> INFORMATION -> DECISION -> PROCEDURE -> CONSEQUENCE -> CHANGED WORLD. 

Forget for a moment that we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons. You encounter a situation. You gather information. You build a model of what is happening. You make a decision. You see what that decision actually did. Then you revise the model. And you do it again.

Modern D&D can certainly contain all of this. I am not arguing that it cannot. But old-school play tends to place more of that burden directly on the player rather than allowing the character sheet to absorb it.

And that is the distinction I care about.

Change the architecture of the game and you change what the player has to think about.

The easiest way to see that is to stop talking abstractly and look at one ordinary scene.

Your Brain Versus the Goblin Patrol

Imagine your party is trying to reach an abandoned monastery before nightfall. You have already been traveling for most of the day. You are low on food. One torch is left. The cleric is injured.

Two sessions ago, a farmer told you that goblins in this region sometimes trade with humans. Last session, you found a broken cart near the river and a dead merchant wearing the colors of a local faction you do not entirely trust.

Now, just before the road narrows into the woods, the Dungeon Master tells you that four goblins step out from behind a fallen tree. No initiative is rolled. Not yet.

One of the goblins raises a hand and says something in a language only one member of the party understands.

What is your brain doing now? First, working memory. You have to hold the immediate situation in mind: four goblins, injured cleric, one torch, approaching darkness, narrow road.

Then episodic memory starts pulling material from previous sessions. What exactly did the farmer say? Were these the goblins who trade? Did the merchant's death have anything to do with them?

Prospective memory enters because your party is supposed to reach the monastery. Maybe someone is waiting there. Maybe there is something you must remember to do once you arrive.

Executive function asks the most basic question of all: What is our actual goal? Is the goal to defeat four goblins? Or is the goal to get to the monastery?

Those are not the same thing.

Now inhibition matters. The fighter can attack. Maybe the fighter really wants to attack. But the ability to act and the wisdom of acting are two different things.

Cognitive flexibility appears the moment your original plan stops working. Perhaps you intended to sneak through the woods. You have now been spotted. Can you abandon the old plan?

Spatial reasoning enters because the road, tree line, river, slope, distance, and possible retreat routes suddenly matter.

Risk assessment enters because combat has consequences. How likely are you to win? How much will it cost? What happens if another patrol hears the fighting? What happens if the cleric goes down?

Then social cognition enters. Why are the goblins talking instead of attacking? What do they want? Are they afraid? Are they buying time? Do they know something you need to know?

Now language matters, because somebody has to formulate an answer.

And because this is a group game, you are not solving the problem alone. Four or five people may each possess different pieces of information, different interpretations, and different ideas about what to do next. So now collaborative problem-solving is layered on top of everything else.

And maybe, five minutes into the conversation, one goblin mentions the merchant. Suddenly your theory changes.

That is metacognition. You recognize that the model in your head may have been wrong. So you revise it.

This is what makes the cognitive structure of old-school D&D so interesting. In one otherwise ordinary encounter, the player may be using working memory, episodic memory, prospective memory, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, planning, probabilistic reasoning, risk assessment, spatial reasoning, divergent thinking, language, theory of mind, social interaction, and collaborative problem-solving.

And here is the part that matters most:

You are not doing those one at a time.

You are doing them together.

The Important Word Is Together

There are plenty of ways to challenge your brain. You can work a crossword. Learn a language. Play chess. Practice a memory exercise. Use a brain-training app. Learn an instrument.

All of those can be cognitively demanding. But something unusual happens in old-school D&D because the demands are not neatly separated from one another. You don't spend five minutes doing working memory, then five minutes doing inhibition, then switch to spatial reasoning.

The goblins do not wait while you finish your executive-function exercise.

Everything arrives at once.

You need to remember what happened earlier while paying attention to what is happening now. You have to suppress one response while considering several others. You are trying to understand somebody else's intentions while keeping your own goal in mind. You may be tracking resources, location, time, risk, and the opinions of four other people while simultaneously trying to decide what to say next.

And the situation keeps changing. That may be the most interesting part of this entire argument. The potential cognitive value of old-school D&D may not simply be that it makes your brain work hard.

It may be that it forces different cognitive systems to work together.

In reviewing the science behind this, I kept coming back to a phrase I use to describe what seems unusual about the activity:

multimodal density.

One activity can simultaneously contain memory, planning, inhibition, flexibility, language, spatial reasoning, social cognition, and collaborative problem-solving. The synthesis of the evidence around Iron Lantern identified this density as perhaps the most interesting scientific hypothesis in the entire project.

None of this means that simply making a task harder automatically makes it better for the brain. The hypothesis is about sustained, meaningful, manageable challenge, not maximum cognitive load.

That matters because real life is multimodal. Life rarely presents you with a clean screen that says:

WORKING MEMORY TASK - BEGIN.

Instead, someone tells you something important while you're distracted. You have to remember it later, figure out what they meant, decide whether circumstances have changed, suppress an impulsive response, formulate a new plan, and communicate that plan to somebody else.

That looks a lot more like the goblin patrol.

And there is an intriguing clue in the cognitive-aging literature. In the Synapse Project, older adults who spent sustained time learning novel, demanding, productive activities showed greater episodic-memory benefits than participants assigned to less demanding activities.

That study was not about D&D, and it does not prove that D&D produces the same effect. But it supports a broader idea that becomes important here:

The nature of the cognitive challenge matters. 

So what happens when we look at the individual pieces?

That is where this gets nerdy.

What the Research Says About the Pieces

Start with executive function.

Executive function is the broad family of abilities that lets you maintain a goal, inhibit the wrong response, switch strategies, organize behavior, and keep doing something useful when conditions change. In other words, much of what prevents an old-school D&D party from getting itself killed.

There is good evidence that complex gameplay can train at least some of these abilities.

Estrada-Plana and colleagues conducted two small randomized trials using modern board and card games with older adults. In the main study, both the game group and an active paper-and-pencil cognitive-training group improved phonemic verbal fluency. The game group maintained motor-impulsivity control while the paper-and-pencil group declined on that measure, although the paper-and-pencil group improved speed on an inhibition task. The results are encouraging, but much narrower than simply saying "board games improve executive function."

That does not make a board game equivalent to D&D. But it establishes something important:

Complex analog gameplay can be cognitively consequential enough to produce measurable change.

Then there is a study I find particularly interesting for old-school gaming. Glass, Maddox, and Love trained participants on real-time strategy games. The condition specifically designed to require maintenance and rapid switching among multiple streams of information and action produced broad gains on non-game measures of cognitive flexibility.

Think about what that implies. Maybe "playing games" is the wrong category. Maybe the better question is:

What does this particular game continually require the player to do?

That is exactly why I care about the difference between old-school and more character-sheet-driven play. Then we get to memory.

A small pilot randomized study of nursing-home residents who learned and played Go found improvement in total digit span, while backward digit span was maintained in the Go group as it declined in controls.

Again, Go is not D&D. But strategic gameplay that requires you to maintain, update, and manipulate information clearly belongs in the conversation.

The long-term observational evidence gets even more interesting.

Altschul and Deary followed 1,091 people from the Lothian Birth Cohort, assessing cognition at ages 70, 73, 76, and 79. One reason this study is unusually valuable is that the researchers also knew how participants had performed on cognitive testing at age 11.

That matters because one obvious criticism of game research is: "Maybe people with better cognition simply play more games."

Knowing childhood cognitive ability substantially weakens, although certainly does not eliminate, that objection. More frequent analog game playing was associated with better cognition at age 70 and with less general cognitive decline from 70 to 79, particularly in memory. Increasing game playing later in life was also associated with less decline in processing speed.

Notice the word I just used.

Associated.

This was not a randomized experiment. We cannot say that playing games caused the slower decline. But when randomized game studies, experimental cognitive-training studies, and long observational studies begin pointing in compatible directions, the overall picture becomes harder to dismiss.

Then there is spatial cognition. This is one area where old-school D&D becomes particularly strange compared with most cognitive games because players may actually have to navigate an imagined space.

Dungeon mapping is not decorative. You are trying to preserve relationships between rooms, corridors, levels, landmarks, alternate routes, loops, choke points, exits, and unknown territory.

There is experimental evidence that sustained spatial-navigation training can affect hippocampal systems.

In one small randomized neuroimaging study, adults aged 55 to 75 trained for six months on a 3-D spatial video game, computerized music lessons, or no intervention. Hippocampal gray matter increased significantly within the spatial-game group while the untreated group showed age-related losses.

In another controlled study, younger and older adults repeatedly performed demanding spatial navigation for four months. Navigation improved, and the training groups maintained hippocampal volume while control groups showed decreases.

Now I want to be very precise here.

This does not mean drawing a dungeon map grows your hippocampus.

That would be exactly the kind of leap that turns an interesting scientific argument into nonsense. What it tells us is narrower and much more useful:

Sustained spatial-navigation demand is neurocognitively meaningful.

So when old-school D&D makes mapping and navigation matter, that part of the game is not just nostalgic bookkeeping.

Finally, what about cognitive aging more broadly?

Several prospective studies have found associations between cognitively stimulating leisure activities and later cognitive health. Verghese and colleagues followed older adults and found that cognitive leisure activities, including board games, were associated with lower subsequent dementia incidence.

Akbaraly and colleagues found a similar association between cognitively stimulating leisure and later dementia risk.

But Dartigues and colleagues followed more than 3,600 older adults for 20 years and found something extremely useful for keeping us intellectually honest: an apparent dementia-risk advantage among regular board-game players disappeared after further adjustment for baseline cognitive status and depression, while associations with less cognitive decline, and more tentatively with depression, persisted.

That is exactly the kind of result I want in this argument.

Because the evidence does not say:

Play games and you won't get dementia.

It says something more complicated.

Cognitively demanding leisure appears repeatedly in the cognitive-aging literature. Some experimental game interventions improve particular cognitive functions. Longitudinal studies sometimes associate game playing and other cognitively stimulating leisure with better later outcomes.

That makes cognitive enrichment a serious hypothesis.

It does not make D&D a prescription.

And we still have not gotten to what may be the most unusual part of D&D.

Other people.

The Parts Brain Games Usually Leave Out

Most cognitive-training software has one profound limitation.

There is nobody on the other side of the problem.

A computer-generated memory task does not misunderstand you. It does not lie to you. It does not become offended. It does not know something you do not. It does not change its mind because of something another player said.

D&D does. That adds an entirely different layer of cognition.

There is already direct TTRPG research suggesting that role-playing engages creative processes in ways worth taking seriously.

In one cross-sectional study, tabletop role-players performed better on divergent-thinking measures than electronic RPG players and nonplayers. Because the study was observational, we cannot know whether tabletop role-playing produced the difference or whether more creative people were simply more likely to play tabletop RPGs.

A later controlled intervention gives us something stronger.

Dyson and colleagues had college students play a tabletop RPG weekly for four weeks. Compared with a nonplaying group, the TTRPG group showed greater improvement in creative potential, although emotional creativity did not improve.

That is particularly interesting because the intervention was not a board game or video game.

It was tabletop role-playing. There is also a useful adjacent literature in acting.

In a study of 122 older adults, four weeks of acting instruction produced greater improvement than singing or no-treatment comparison groups across most of a cognitive battery involving word recall, prose comprehension and recall, word generation, and problem solving.

Why would acting belong in a discussion of D&D? Because role enactment is cognitively weird.

You have to keep track of what I know, what my character knows, what my character wants, what another character knows, what the NPC appears to want, what the NPC may actually want, what happened earlier, and what might happen if I act.

That combination requires memory, language, inhibition, perspective-taking, and problem-solving at the same time.

And then there is the social component itself. I would be cautious about saying D&D "trains empathy."

The evidence is nowhere near strong enough to justify that.

That idea does have some direct but preliminary support. Rivers and colleagues found higher self-reported empathy among 127 fantasy role-players, but the study was cross-sectional and cannot establish that role-playing caused it. In another study involving just six autistic adolescents, reported social-skill frequency rose and perceived difficulty fell after six in-person TTRPG sessions, but the differences were not statistically significant and the sample was far too small for strong conclusions.

Interesting? Yes. Evidence that D&D reliably "trains empathy"? No.

But old-school encounters repeatedly require players to interpret motives, negotiate, deceive, persuade, cooperate, remember relationships, take turns, and alter their behavior when another person does something unexpected.

Social activity has also been associated with cognitive health in aging. In one prospective study of more than 1,100 older adults without dementia, greater social activity predicted a slower rate of global cognitive decline even after adjustment for a long list of health, behavioral, and psychological factors. Again, this was observational and does not establish causation.

D&D therefore contains something difficult to reproduce in a conventional cognitive exercise:

The problem itself may be social.

Sometimes the thing you are trying to understand is another mind.

And that brings us to something I did not expect when I first started thinking about D&D as cognitive exercise. Researchers have now taken this idea somewhere much more serious than game night. They have used tabletop role-playing after brain injury.

Then Someone Tried TTRPGs in Brain Rehabilitation

In 2026, Krautkremer, Togher, and Keegan published a pilot clinical study using tabletop role-playing as group therapy for people with acquired brain injury.

Five people with moderate-to-severe ABI played an online TTRPG for two hours a week over seven weeks. Individualized rehabilitation goals improved significantly, and analysis of participants' communication suggested positive changes.

But conventional pre/post neuropsychological measures did not significantly improve.

That last sentence is important. This was five people. It was a pilot. It does not demonstrate that D&D restored damaged brain networks.

What it does mean is that the idea has crossed an important line:

Tabletop role-playing as cognitive-communication rehabilitation after brain injury is no longer purely theoretical.

And one of the most fascinating connections is executive rehabilitation.

There is an established rehabilitation approach called Goal Management Training. In simplified form, it repeatedly teaches people with executive dysfunction to stop, identify the goal, gather relevant information, formulate a plan, execute it, monitor the result, and revise the plan when necessary.

A randomized trial involving 70 people with chronic acquired brain injury tested a rehabilitation package combining Goal Management Training, external cueing, and emotional-regulation strategies and found improvements in executive-function outcomes, with benefits persisting into follow-up. Another randomized ABI trial found better everyday executive-function outcomes from strategy-based treatment than from computerized cognitive-function training.

Read that sequence again:

Identify the goal. Gather information. Plan. Act. Observe. Revise.

Now compare it with the old-school D&D loop:

WORLD -> INFORMATION -> DECISION -> PROCEDURE -> CONSEQUENCE -> CHANGED WORLD.

Those are not the same intervention. That distinction matters.

But cognitively, they are close enough to make the comparison very interesting.

The brain-injury literature adds another useful warning. A multisite randomized, double-blind study of 83 people with persistent cognitive problems after mild traumatic brain injury found significantly greater improvement on a cognitive composite after plasticity-based cognitive training than after an active computer-game control, with the advantage persisting at follow-up. But those gains did not translate into significantly better directly observed instrumental activities of daily living.

That gets at one of the central problems in cognitive training:

Getting better at the exercise is not necessarily the same thing as getting better at life.

And this is where D&D becomes particularly intriguing. Old-school D&D does not isolate one cognitive operation very well. That would be a weakness if the goal were laboratory control.

But it could be a strength if what interests us is functional integration.

You remember something in order to make a decision. You make the decision in order to solve a problem. You communicate because another person has information you need. You inhibit a response because the consequences matter. You change strategies because your first interpretation failed.

The cognitive operations exist in service of meaningful goals. That is much closer to how cognition is actually used outside a testing room. Again, that is a hypothesis. But it is an increasingly interesting one.

Does This Mean D&D Prevents Dementia? No.

This is the point where a good argument can very easily become a bad one.

There is a temptation, once you have assembled enough interesting studies, to compress the whole thing into a headline:

D&D prevents dementia. I do not think the evidence allows us to say that.

We do not have a large randomized trial showing that people assigned to old-school D&D develop less cognitive decline than people assigned to another activity. We do not have evidence showing that OSR play is superior to learning an instrument, dancing, studying a language, playing chess, doing theater, or participating in other demanding social activities.

We do not even have a direct trial showing that old-school D&D improves cognition in healthy older adults.

What we have is a chain of evidence. And some links in that chain are much stronger than others.

We know that complex cognitive training can improve certain functions. We know that strategic gameplay can affect executive function, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. We know that spatial-navigation training can affect hippocampal systems. We know that sustained engagement in novel, demanding activities can benefit memory.

We have direct TTRPG research showing signals in creativity and several psychosocial domains, with evidence ranging from controlled interventions to observational and very small exploratory studies. We now even have preliminary evidence that tabletop role-playing can be used as a cognitive-communication intervention after acquired brain injury.

And we have long-term observational research linking cognitively stimulating leisure, including analog games, with better cognitive outcomes in later life.

But those facts do not magically combine into:

D&D prevents dementia.

The evidence review underlying this article reached essentially the same conclusion: old-school tabletop role-playing is a compelling candidate for a particularly high-density form of cognitive enrichment, while whether OSR D&D itself produces measurable protection against age-related cognitive decline has not yet been tested.

There is another boundary worth making explicit. None of this research shows that old-school D&D is cognitively superior to modern D&D. That part of my argument comes from comparing what the two styles ask the player to do, not from a clinical trial comparing them. The hypothesis is that putting more information gathering, planning, spatial reasoning, resource management, and consequence-based decision-making back onto the player creates a denser cognitive task.

That hypothesis has not yet been directly tested.

That distinction matters. I would much rather make a narrower claim that survives scrutiny than a dramatic claim that collapses the moment somebody checks the literature.

And the narrower claim is still remarkable:

Old-school D&D appears to combine an unusually large number of cognitively meaningful activities inside a single, recurring, socially engaging experience.

That is not a dementia-prevention claim. It is a hypothesis about cognitive enrichment.

And I think it is a very good one.

Why I Still Think This Is Remarkable

There is one more reason I think D&D deserves more attention as a cognitive-health activity.

It does not feel like cognitive training. That may be one of its greatest advantages.

Nobody sits down at a D&D table and says: Tonight I would like to practice prospective memory. I would also like 20 minutes of inhibition training, followed by some spatial reasoning and a little perspective-taking. That would be unbearable.

Instead, someone says:

Are we going back into the dungeon tonight?

And three hours later you have remembered the name of an NPC from two weeks ago, reconstructed a route through an underground complex, noticed that two pieces of information do not agree, changed a plan, negotiated with someone you did not trust, restrained another player from doing something catastrophically stupid, calculated whether you had enough light to continue, decided whether a risk was worth taking, and made a promise you are going to have to remember next Thursday.

You did all of that because you wanted to know what happened next.

That is important. Because one of the enduring problems with cognitive exercise is not simply finding something capable of challenging the brain. It is finding something people will continue doing.

A task can be exquisitely designed in a laboratory and still be useless as a lifelong cognitive habit if nobody wants to perform it outside the study.

D&D has a built-in answer to that problem: curiosity, story, risk, friendship, unfinished business, a mystery, a rival, a map with one corridor you still have not explored.

The cognitive demands are embedded inside something the player actually cares about. And that changes the relationship to the exercise.

Most cognitive exercises give you a problem because exercising cognition is the goal.

D&D gives you a goal that makes exercising cognition necessary.

I think that distinction is enormous. It also helps explain why old-school play interests me more than simply saying "games are good for the brain." The architecture matters.

If the game constantly tells you what matters, highlights the correct option, resolves uncertainty through a skill button, scales danger to your level, and protects you from catastrophic mistakes, some of the cognitive load has been removed.

Old-school play deliberately puts more of it back. You have to notice, remember, ask, infer, plan, argue, test, retreat, reconsider, and live with what happened.

The world is not waiting for you to select the correct answer. You are building an internal model of an uncertain environment and updating that model when reality proves you wrong.

That is why I keep returning to the basic Iron Lantern loop:

WORLD -> INFORMATION -> DECISION -> PROCEDURE -> CONSEQUENCE -> CHANGED WORLD. 

It is a game loop. But strip away the goblins, dice, torches, and ruined temples, and it also sounds remarkably like adaptive cognition. Something exists. You gather information about it. You decide what you think is happening. You act. Reality answers. Then you update.

Again. And again. And again.

Which is why I think the most interesting scientific question may not ultimately be whether D&D "stimulates the brain." Almost anything sufficiently complicated stimulates the brain.

The better question is whether repeated, meaningful practice of many cognitive systems working together offers something different from repeatedly drilling those systems in isolation.

We do not know the answer yet. But old-school D&D gives us an unusually interesting environment in which to ask it. And maybe that is the larger lesson.

The best cognitive exercise may not be the one that looks most like an exercise. It may be the one complicated enough to require your memory, judgment, imagination, language, planning, flexibility, spatial reasoning, and understanding of other people all at once. And fun enough that you voluntarily come back next week and do it again.

Now roll for initiative.

References

1. Park, D. C., et al. (2014). The Impact of Sustained Engagement on Cognitive Function in Older Adults: The Synapse Project. Psychological Science, 25(1), 103–112. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613499592 

2. Estrada-Plana, V., et al. (2021). Cognitive training with modern board and card games in healthy older adults: Two randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 36(6), 839–850. DOI: 10.1002/gps.5484 

3. Glass, B. D., Maddox, W. T., & Love, B. C. (2013). Real-Time Strategy Game Training: Emergence of a Cognitive Flexibility Trait. PLOS ONE, 8(8), e70350. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070350 

4. Iizuka, A., et al. (2018). Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of the GO Game Intervention on Cognitive Function. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias, 33(3), 192–198. DOI: 10.1177/1533317517753362 

5. Altschul, D. M., & Deary, I. J. (2020). Playing Analog Games Is Associated With Reduced Declines in Cognitive Function: A 68-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75(3), 474–482. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbz149 

6. West, G. L., et al. (2017). Playing Super Mario 64 increases hippocampal grey matter in older adults. PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0187779. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187779 

7. Lövdén, M., et al. (2012). Spatial navigation training protects the hippocampus against age-related changes during early and late adulthood. Neurobiology of Aging, 33(3), 620.e9–620.e22. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.02.013 

8. Verghese, J., et al. (2003). Leisure Activities and the Risk of Dementia in the Elderly. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348(25), 2508–2516. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022252 

9. Akbaraly, T. N., et al. (2009). Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly: Results from the Three-City Study. Neurology, 73(11), 854–861. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181b7849b 

10. Dartigues, J.-F., et al. (2013). Playing board games, cognitive decline and dementia: A French population-based cohort study. BMJ Open, 3(8), e002998. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002998 

11. Chung, T.-S. (2013). Table-top role playing game and creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 56–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.06.002 

12. Dyson, S. B., et al. (2016). The effect of tabletop role-playing games on the creative potential and emotional creativity of Taiwanese college students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 88–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.004 

13. Noice, H., & Noice, T. (2009). An Arts Intervention for Older Adults Living in Subsidized Retirement Homes. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 16(1), 56–79. DOI: 10.1080/13825580802233400 

14. Rivers, A., Wickramasekera II, I. E., Pekala, R. J., & Rivers, J. A. (2016). Empathic Features and Absorption in Fantasy Role-Playing. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 58(3), 286–294. DOI: 10.1080/00029157.2015.1103696 

15. Henning, G., et al. (2024). Social skills training with a tabletop role-playing game, before and during the pandemic of 2020: In-person and online group sessions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1276757. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1276757 

16. James, B. D., Wilson, R. S., Barnes, L. L., & Bennett, D. A. (2011). Late-Life Social Activity and Cognitive Decline in Old Age. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(6), 998–1005. DOI: 10.1017/S1355617711000531 

17. Krautkremer, C., Togher, L., & Keegan, L. C. (2026). “Roll for intervention:” a (crit)ical look at the feasibility of online table-top role-playing games as group therapy for acquired brain injury. Disability and Rehabilitation. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2026.2673742 

18. Tornås, S., et al. (2016). Rehabilitation of Executive Functions in Patients with Chronic Acquired Brain Injury with Goal Management Training, External Cuing, and Emotional Regulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 22(4), 436–452. DOI: 10.1017/S1355617715001344 

19. Spikman, J. M., Boelen, D. H. E., Lamberts, K. F., Brouwer, W. H., & Fasotti, L. (2010). Effects of a multifaceted treatment program for executive dysfunction after acquired brain injury on indications of executive functioning in daily life. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16(1), 118–129. DOI: 10.1017/S1355617709991020 

20. Mahncke, H. W., et al. (2021). A randomized clinical trial of plasticity-based cognitive training in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain, 144(7), 1994–2008. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awab202 :