A game that optimizes for...?

[masqueradeball]

Fig, You've come back a few times to the idea that RPG's put limits on creativity, but I think you'll find that many creative people really like to think within the box, because it forces them to stretch mental muscles that they may never stretch in the vacuum of themselves. Also, the idea that I have to incorporate the input of other creative people continues to make me stretch.
So why not just sit around with a group of friends and tell stories with our own list of arbitrary limitations:

1) The preconceived notions of given game give the creative person a launching off point and give the group a (supposedly) cohesive basis from which to start. This encourages all of the participants to stay on the same page.
2) The game system creates an in-built way to solve or at least address creative differences and make sure that everyone follows the same functional constraints.
3) The "secondary" elements of the game (those aspects most similar to board game or video game play) allow the players to take the focus of themselves or their ability to be effective storytellers, the feeling of "its just a game" alleviate the rather intense pressure of asking people to sit down and impress others with their ability to tell compelling stories. The fact that RPG's do a great job of hiding this core activity, but still leave the players with a strong sense of having participated in something (namely, the creation of a shared story) is one of the activities greatest strengths.

[Creatures of Destiny]

Fig, You've come back a few times to the idea that RPG's put limits on creativity, but I think you'll find that many creative people really like to think within the box, because it forces them to stretch mental muscles that they may never stretch in the vacuum of themselves. Also, the idea that I have to incorporate the input of other creative people continues to make me stretch.
So why not just sit around with a group of friends and tell stories with our own list of arbitrary limitations:

1) The preconceived notions of given game give the creative person a launching off point and give the group a (supposedly) cohesive basis from which to start. This encourages all of the participants to stay on the same page.
2) The game system creates an in-built way to solve or at least address creative differences and make sure that everyone follows the same functional constraints.
3) The "secondary" elements of the game (those aspects most similar to board game or video game play) allow the players to take the focus of themselves or their ability to be effective storytellers, the feeling of "its just a game" alleviate the rather intense pressure of asking people to sit down and impress others with their ability to tell compelling stories. The fact that RPG's do a great job of hiding this core activity, but still leave the players with a strong sense of having participated in something (namely, the creation of a shared story) is one of the activities greatest strengths.

Hey, that to me is probably the best definition of why playing a RPG is worth doing.

[JoyWriter]

I totally agree with masqueradeball, but I'd say there's more to it than that, and this time I won't hit you with a big ball of text:

Enforced communication:
Turn systems insure that everyone has a chance to contribute, and balance systems insure that everyone's contribution can be meaningful (which is partly the essence of true balance and often not achieved).
Brainspasm defence:
Random tables and other world building tools allow you to muddle through creative blocks, while staying in theme.
Challenges to agency:
The system forces people to come to terms with not always getting their way; they may well fail at stuff a fair amount without loosing overall and this produces perseverance in life. It also expands peoples creative horizons, as they may be forced to deal with decisions that they never normally would have to. "I would never end up in that dilemma." "Well you rolled badly and now you are!"
Education and encouragement to maturity:
Along side the challenge thing, if you look at Dogs in the Vineyard it suggests that the GM probes peoples principles and deconstruct simplistic ideas. It's just a shame no method was suggested to help him do this, but then academic philosophy finds this hard. Along side this there is the mental advantage of slowly amping difficulty so that as with the model of effortful study, skill can be truly increased. To be honest there's also all the implicit lessons that people put into their rules like "You can't be good at everything" "Give it time and you'll get better" etc.
Challenge and rebellion:
Because the rules are so obviously made up, people are more likely to challenge them and imagine different worlds, leading to places like the forge, but also people more likely to challenge traditions that they can see are similarly arbitrary.
Adult play:
It allows and encourages adults to include things from the adult world into play, which is supposedly the child world, encouraging experimentation, creativity, flexibility and general geekyness, of the kind that drives our society forward.

And that's mostly in addition to the stuff in my last post. Of course this looks towards an idealised rpg, but when you know how it could be good you can try to change it, rather than just giving up!