NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 8647802" data-attributes="member: 16586">Here's how I look at constraints in context of games (not just roleplaying games). A (social) constraint is something that can be socially enforced. In order to be socially enforceable, it must be observable when our expectations are not met and socially permissible to raise a stink over it. What players can raise a stink about will tell us a good deal about the structure of play.Basically, game rules are just social constraints we agree to take on inside the magic circle. They are its foundation. Different play structures have different social constraints. A big one for more exploration focused play (as is typical for 5e) is the expectation of tangibility. Basically, that we can poke and prod at the setting and it holds up to scrutiny. That we can basically try to investigate the contents of that black box and move things from a hidden game state to a known game state. At that point these things become a constraint on the GM because players are able to keep them honest about the consistency of the setting. They have leverage.That ability to poke and prod at the game setting with the expectation that there are layers to unravel (even if they are under construction) is not universally shared under all play structures. For insistence poking and prodding at the setting in Apocalypse World is just a prompt for the MC to make moves and frame potential conflicts. It's not going to provide leverage or allow you to neutrally navigate the setting just to sate your curiosity. There are no layers of the onion to discover.</blockquote>

Verification