Topic: [Outline] Limiting yourself: why constraint is necessary...
Started by: LordSmerf
Started on: 2/7/2005
Board: Push Editorial Board
On 2/7/2005 at 6:38pm, LordSmerf wrote:
[Outline] Limiting yourself: why constraint is necessary...
"Limiting yourself: why constraint is necessary for fun roleplaying."
Intoduction
-Fictional Actual Play w/o Constraint
-Define constraint, utilize lines on the road illustration
Sources of constraint
-Social contract (all Constraint is really social contract)
-Traditional influences
--Setting material
--Mechanical focus (i.e. seperate combat systems)
--Character generation including chargen options and mechanics
--Historical play (within the group)
Analysis
-Why constraint is necessary
--Direction
---Menu of choices(thanks Ben)
--Shortens negotiation time
-Minimum constraint levels
--Is it variable?
--Finding them
-Maximum constraint
--Is it variable?
--Identifying maximum effective constraint
--The danger of over-constraint
---Best case: wasted time
---Worst case: less fun play
Engineering Constraint
-Frontloaded
--Setting and Metaplot (Glorantha-focused text in HeroQuest)
--Implicit in formailized Social Contract engineering (a la Universalis)
--Character generation, goals (Kickers in Sorcerer, BITs in The Burning Wheel, SAs in The Riddle of Steel)
--Situation set-up (town creation in Dogs in the Vinyard)
---[discuss "traditional" scenario prep here?]
-Dynamic
--Inter-character mechanics (Trust in The Mountain Witch) [not entirely sure what I want to say about this one]
--Inter-player rewards/"that's just cool" (fanmail in Primetime Adventures)
--[I'd like at least one or two more examples of dynamic Constraint. Suggestions?]
Conclusion
A couple of notes...
"Constraint" here is a subset of "how do I know what to contribute?" as Vencent says. John Kim's "Scope" is a subset of Constraint (I think the congruity here is totally awesome...). The Constraints are the things that communicate to the group what play is about. I'm still sort of feeling the whole idea out, I'm sure there's a tie to CAs somewhere, but I can't put my finger on it yet. That's beyond the scope of this thing anyway, so I'm not really worried.
So, my basic purpose is to lay out Constraint and then analyze the dangers of too much and too little. I also want to discuss historical sources and some more modern ones, and then finish up with some specific and purposeful ways to manipulate the Constraints of a game.
Comments? How's the organization on this? I is just an outline, so I know you can't get too much from it, but hopefully the actual essay will get under way soon.
Thomas
On 2/7/2005 at 7:05pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Re: [Outline] Limiting yourself: why constraint is necessary
LordSmerf wrote:
"Limiting yourself: why constraint is necessary for fun roleplaying."
Discussion of improv theater fits the topic: is it a non-constraint environment, and if it is, why it works? What's going on there?
Below some random questions I came up while scanning the text. No idea if they're relevant to your approach.
Sources of constraint
-Social contract (all Constraint is really social contract)
-Traditional influences
--Setting material
--Mechanical focus (i.e. seperate combat systems)
--Character generation including chargen options and mechanics
--Historical play (within the group)
Isn't it circular thinking to consider System of any kind a source for constraint? Constraint itself is the system, while the social and artistical issues are the source, ne? I don't know if that heading is meant literally, though, so you might just mean "types of constraint" instead of sources.
Analysis
-Why constraint is necessary
--Direction
---Menu of choices(thanks Ben)
--Shortens negotiation time
Are these what constraint does? Doesn't all System provide direction and shorten negotiation time? Is all System constraints, or is the quality somehow different?
-Minimum constraint levels
--Is it variable?
--Finding them
Minimum constraint is when you play in separate rooms all by your lonesome, I would think. Or is there some other point to this part?
-Maximum constraint
--Is it variable?
--Identifying maximum effective constraint
--The danger of over-constraint
---Best case: wasted time
---Worst case: less fun play
Is maximum effective constraint the level where players start ignoring the rules, or what? What's 'effective'?
--[I'd like at least one or two more examples of dynamic Constraint. Suggestions?]
Closing off choices: like Vincent's Toward One (or whatever the name of that game is, I forget), where players auction character classes during chargen, and there cannot be more than one character in each class. Much more common in boardgames, although practical D&D does this in it's niche-protection practices.
Progressing system, like D&D or WW: characters change during time, and they capabilities change correspondingly. Dynamic constraint. Usually the constrains lessen, but in some games they actually tighten, and sometimes go up and down.
"Constraint" here is a subset of "how do I know what to contribute?" as Vencent says. John Kim's "Scope" is a subset of Constraint. The Constraints are the things that communicate to the group what play is about. I'm still sort of feeling the whole idea out, I'm sure there's a tie to CAs somewhere, but I can't put my finger on it yet. That's beyond the scope of this thing anyway, so I'm not really worried.
"What the play is about" seems as the key point here. 'About' in what sense? I don't think that you're looking at agenda level concepts, really. Vincent says it best (duh, no surprise there): "How do you know what to contribute?" That's not primarily a GNS question at all, as the GNS meaning of a contribution is tied to the context, while the constraints are the range of System-allowed contributions. The two coincide only when the system disallows certain CAs, and that hasn't happened yet.
Comments? How's the organization on this? I is just an outline, so I know you can't get too much from it, but hopefully the actual essay will get under way soon.
Seems good to me. You'll probably find some deeper structural idea while writing it, but that's only good. This kind of text becomes better if you find that you want to say something general through the exposition.
On 2/7/2005 at 8:29pm, LordSmerf wrote:
RE: Re: [Outline] Limiting yourself: why constraint is necessary
Eero Tuovinen wrote: Discussion of improv theater fits the topic: is it a non-constraint environment, and if it is, why it works? What's going on there?
I know basically nothing about improv theater. My guess is that a process similar to what happens with Universalis. Constraint is constructed through play. Good sources for researching the subject would be appreciated.
Sources of constraint
-Social contract (all Constraint is really social contract)
-Traditional influences
--Setting material
--Mechanical focus (i.e. seperate combat systems)
--Character generation including chargen options and mechanics
--Historical play (within the group)
Isn't it circular thinking to consider System of any kind a source for constraint? Constraint itself is the system, while the social and artistical issues are the source, ne? I don't know if that heading is meant literally, though, so you might just mean "types of constraint" instead of sources.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I'll try to answer anyway. Constraint is "system" in basically a pure Lumpley Principle sense. There are mechanics and stuff that can formalize it or influence it, but Constraint itself is a purely social beast.
When I talk about Constraint having "sources" what I mean is where does the Social Contract get these things? How do you know what you're supposed to contribute (or not)?
Analysis
-Why constraint is necessary
--Direction
---Menu of choices(thanks Ben)
--Shortens negotiation time
Are these what constraint does? Doesn't all System provide direction and shorten negotiation time? Is all System constraints, or is the quality somehow different?
Hmm... Honestly I haven't considered this at all. Is system just consrtaint? Maybe.
-Minimum constraint levels
--Is it variable?
--Finding them
Minimum constraint is when you play in separate rooms all by your lonesome, I would think. Or is there some other point to this part?
Minimum Constraint is the minimum level of Constraint (that probably varies by group) for play to not suck. The basic idea is that below some threshhold you have to waste significant time negotiating your Constraints. Constraint negotiation happens all the time, but the idea here is that it takes a disproportionate amount of time. Sort of like high levels of search and handling time.
-Maximum constraint
--Is it variable?
--Identifying maximum effective constraint
--The danger of over-constraint
---Best case: wasted time
---Worst case: less fun play
Is maximum effective constraint the level where players start ignoring the rules, or what? What's 'effective'?
In a similar way that there is a minimum level of constraint, there is some level of maximum constraint. Having more constraint than this is, basically, over-preperation. At best you have wasted your time as play busts through whatever you prepared, at worst you maintain your level of constraint even though it is no longer contributing to fun play.
This is sort of a section on how to know if you are over-preparing for a game.
--[I'd like at least one or two more examples of dynamic Constraint. Suggestions?]
Closing off choices: like Vincent's Toward One (or whatever the name of that game is, I forget), where players auction character classes during chargen, and there cannot be more than one character in each class. Much more common in boardgames, although practical D&D does this in it's niche-protection practices.
Progressing system, like D&D or WW: characters change during time, and they capabilities change correspondingly. Dynamic constraint. Usually the constrains lessen, but in some games they actually tighten, and sometimes go up and down.
Thanks, I'll consider these and see if they are illustrative of what I'm trying to get at.
"Constraint" here is a subset of "how do I know what to contribute?" as Vencent says. John Kim's "Scope" is a subset of Constraint. The Constraints are the things that communicate to the group what play is about. I'm still sort of feeling the whole idea out, I'm sure there's a tie to CAs somewhere, but I can't put my finger on it yet. That's beyond the scope of this thing anyway, so I'm not really worried.
"What the play is about" seems as the key point here. 'About' in what sense? I don't think that you're looking at agenda level concepts, really. Vincent says it best (duh, no surprise there): "How do you know what to contribute?" That's not primarily a GNS question at all, as the GNS meaning of a contribution is tied to the context, while the constraints are the range of System-allowed contributions. The two coincide only when the system disallows certain CAs, and that hasn't happened yet.
You're probably right, GNS is a red herring... Remember though, the key here is that the when we are talking about "system" we mean it in the Lumpley Principle sense. I think that many of the constraints we find in play are implicit, "That's the way we play." "Like that great movie we watched yesterday." "That's how games are supposed to be played." "Dude, your character always gets hit on by the hot chicks!"
Comments? How's the organization on this? I is just an outline, so I know you can't get too much from it, but hopefully the actual essay will get under way soon.
Seems good to me. You'll probably find some deeper structural idea while writing it, but that's only good. This kind of text becomes better if you find that you want to say something general through the exposition.
Thanks. I'm not sure exactly what this means... but I'm thinking that I am talking about something general and important to RPGs...
Thomas