I was browsing through roleplays the other day when I came upon this statement: “Limitations breed creativity.” This troubled me greatly—my first thought asked, “Don’t limitations prevent creativity?” I refused to stop there, and endeavoured to find an answer, but that one question opened more and more. What do limitations do for creativity? Do they foster it or stifle it? Are there any reasonable limitations—and, if so, can I decide what kind of limitations are and are not reasonable?
Creativity can be defined as “the use of original ideas in the production of an artistic work.” (“Artistic” may obfuscate any points I make, so unless it becomes relevant it’ll only serve as a sort of clarification.) A limitation that fosters creativity must encourage the use of original ideas, but I believe that it is much easier for a limitation to restrict the use of original ideas. Such a limitation may say that you cannot use x idea in y way, or that you can only use x idea in y way. It may make generalisations, but a limitation on creativity will usually be in the form of a whitelist or blacklist, nebulous or otherwise.
Thus, a limitation on creativity must, by definition, reduce creativity. Such limitations prevent the use of certain ideas and discount imagination in certain areas. I do not intend, however, to paint limitations in such a negative light. Perhaps there are limitations that, despite restricting creativity, also encourage it, such that the negative effect is outweighed. Perhaps, in fact, there are some limitations that are necessary to meaningful creativity.
I’d like to examine several common limitations on writers and, by logical argument, explain whether their net effect is negative or positive. Feel free to object or make your own examinations.
One potential limitation is the general rule that ideas must make sense. Given a setting or a starting point, ideas must flow logically and not arbitrarily. This limitation immediately restricts the use of any original idea that cannot sensibly fit within the situation. Any random ideas a writer may have must either be discarded or re-shaped. This is, perhaps, the most basic limitation on creativity and one of the most powerful, because it governs every single idea a writer may conceive, but it is also the most lax, because any idea, no matter how superficially nonsensical, is allowed if it can be properly fit.
It may be argued that, in the presence of the logical limitation, a writer may be bogged down by the need to make all aspects of his story fit together from the very beginning, and that the process of constructing a logical setting, outline, and so on may cause the writer to lose interest before he or she can ever even begin writing. I’ve experienced the very same thing. That is why I can say with certainty that this argument is not universally applicable; one can write freely with some concern for logic and adapt to the logical limitation in the editing stage.
Bear with me as I make my argument for the positivity of the logical limitation. Confusion tends to occur in the absence of logic; if a writer does not arrange ideas logically, confusion results. If ideas fit together sensibly, they gain meaning and consistent purpose. Note that the logical limitation is meaningful only if a writer desires a coherent, sensible work without confusion. But I also advance the idea that most creative works will die without the logical limitation. If there is no direction or meaning, a collection of parts may never become a whole, not even by some stroke of luck.
The logical limitation, by inhibiting confusion, encourages and supports the creation of a work—without which original ideas have no outlet, and without which creativity is limited completely, not just a little bit. The net effect is positive and the logical limitation is reasonable.
Another common limitation that is more directly stated or followed in a work is that of the setting. By setting I do not exclusively imply the world a work is set in, but instead the basis for a work. For the purposes of my argument, the setting of a work is whatever it starts with, the foundation. This may include the world and its history, cultures, and peoples; but it may also include the characters involved and their motives, personalities, and emotions. A creative work is limited by a setting if all ideas involved in the work must follow logically from the setting.
The setting can be considered an extension of the logical limitation. It restricts more ideas than the logical limitation does because it only allows ideas that fit with a writer’s starting point. For example, a character may start with a goal to help others. Meanwhile, the world may be deteriorating on account of some looming apocalypse. If the character is enabled to save the world, his or her goal may change to save the world. This is a logical result of the setting (the world’s deterioration and the character’s desire to help others). On the other hand, the character is unlikely to decide not to save the world if enabled to do so, because that does not necessarily follow from his or her original predispositions.
I believe that setting is a positive limitation, but less positive than the logical limitation, and my reasoning will follow that of my arguments for the logical limitation. A setting discourages confusion because it encourages actions that occur in the work to follow a reasonable chain of events. A character has no direction who does whatever the writer feels like, but a character with an initial personality (a setting) acts in a consistent, coherent manner. Similarly, a world that operates logically provides a consistent backdrop for the actions of consistent characters, but a world subject to the random whims of its creator will confuse the characters and the actions they take.
In my examination on the logical limitation, I considered the argument that the need for logical consistency may bog down a writer in complications and inconsistencies. In the context of the logical limitation alone, this argument is easily overcome. However, if a writer wishes to limit his or her work to a setting, it is harder to write freely and then adapt to the setting in the editing stage. Instead, it turns out that a writer must prepare some semblance of a setting before beginning the writing stage.
I put great stock in setting, myself, and I, too, lost interest when I spent all my time preparing a setting before writing anything. In my experience, the limitation of a setting is only positive if a writer can strike a balance between writing and planning. A setting fosters creativity by supporting creation of a coherent work, but can restrict creativity by cutting off a work before it properly starts. The net effect is generally positive and generally reasonable.
Although the end goal of a story is rarely considered a restriction on writing, I believe that a goal is most definitely a limitation, and a common one at that. For this argument I’ll define “goal” as the final goal of a work—just as the setting is the starting state of a story, so the goal is the end state. (I’ll consider intermittent goals in my next examination.) The goal of a writer may involve the final state of a character in terms of his or her personality or development, or the final state of the world as a whole, or anything in between.
Just like a setting and the logical limitation, goals provide direction for a story and thereby decrease confusion. However, unless goals are applied very carefully, they may illogically restrict the logical limitation by ruling out certain reasonable effects or actions. For example, a writer may sacrifice the natural development of his or her characters in order to push them toward a personality goal; this usually results in obviously artificial development.
But allowing characters to change naturally with their surroundings is dangerous to a story goal because their motives may change to the point that they don’t want to or cannot bring forth the end state. In a story, a writer can move toward his or her goal by manipulating the surroundings effectively without sacrificing logical progression for the characters, and the writer may also predispose the characters toward his story goal when he or she creates his setting.
It is not so easy to naturally push a goal in a roleplay. If all members of a roleplay are required to strive toward the goal, they are effectively forced to turn their characters in that direction with artificial development and less varied personality traits. Yet a GM can still accomplish his or her goals by manipulating the surroundings to prevent unwanted or adverse character development or by disallowing adverse or potentially adverse characters.
I have shown that goals are negative if applied directly to characters, but positive if applied to the surroundings. Yet, even the surroundings are not always capable of changing a character’s direction once it has been changed adversely. GMs that desire an end goal for their roleplay must confront certain decisions: should the GM restrict characters and risk causing artificial development or, worse yet, stifling development altogether? Should he or she let the roleplay run its course, even if it fails at accomplishing the goal? Can he or she establish a middle ground?
The plot of a story or roleplay is much like an end goal. For the sake of this argument, I’ll define plot in two ways: as a series of intermittent goals that together make up the story or as a series of events related to the setting that drives the story. The former definition has the potential to be extremely restrictive for many of the same reasons outlined in the above examination. If certain events must occur on account of characters’ actions and not the surroundings, characters must be manipulated to create the desired effect.
An author who desires a strict plot must work harder to keep character development natural, which significantly restricts creativity, because only actions and changes that contribute to the plot can be allowed. The situation is worsened in a roleplay, and I would go so far as to say that a roleplay with a strict plot will succeed much better as a shared, co-planned narrative, rather than to hold any pretences of being a roleplay. In this sense, plot is extremely negative and stifles creativity worse than any of the other three limitations.
On the other hand, a writer or GM may plan events that happen to the players on account of the surroundings. Used and manipulated correctly, these events can elicit desired but natural development and accomplish goals that may be set for the narrative—without sacrificing the autonomy of the involved characters. This definition of plot is far less restrictive than the other one, but is also very planning-intensive, and it can bog down an author or GM just as much as setting and the logical limitation do. I believe that, in this sense, plot is either neutral or slightly negative, since it may discourage writing with the tedium of extensive planning.
When people say "Limitations breed creativity," they are saying that people do more interesting things when they are presented with a barrier and aren't given excessive freedom. They will find a way around the barrier, or they will find a way to make their side of the barrier more palatable.
As an example, I once joined a magical girl roleplay. I didn't like it very much, but that's not really important. I wanted to make a medusa themed girl, with some pirate themes thrown in. Medusa traditionally dwelled on an island by the sea, so it wasn't a huge stretch. But the GM would have none of that, and said that the snake aspect of my character was too far outside the boundaries of what a pirate was. But I really liked her powers, particularly her paralyzing stare and how her hair could be used as a weapon. So instead I made her more of a pirate captain who drew influence from all the great pirates. She had burning wicks in her hair like black beard that could be used as weapons. She also had the intense gaze of a pirate captain, which often caused people to stop in their tracks. So while I didn't get to play as my medusa/pirate hybrid, I got to use all the powers I wanted to and made one of the most unique magical girls the RP saw. While it did ruin some of the backstory stuff between medusa and my character both having similer origins, she was definitely the most interesting pirate magical girl I'd ever seen. all because a GM told me I couldn't have a medusa pirate girl.
Limitations definitely make for more interesting stories.
When people say "Limitations breed creativity," they are saying that people do more interesting things when they are presented with a barrier and aren't given excessive freedom. They will find a way around the barrier, or they will find a way to make their side of the barrier more palatable.
As an example, I once joined a magical girl roleplay. I didn't like it very much, but that's not really important. I wanted to make a medusa themed girl, with some pirate themes thrown in. Medusa traditionally dwelled on an island by the sea, so it wasn't a huge stretch. But the GM would have none of that, and said that the snake aspect of my character was too far outside the boundaries of what a pirate was. But I really liked her powers, particularly her paralyzing stare and how her hair could be used as a weapon. So instead I made her more of a pirate captain who drew influence from all the great pirates. She had burning wicks in her hair like black beard that could be used as weapons. She also had the intense gaze of a pirate captain, which often caused people to stop in their tracks. So while I didn't get to play as my medusa/pirate hybrid, I got to use all the powers I wanted to and made one of the most unique magical girls the RP saw. While it did ruin some of the backstory stuff between medusa and my character both having similer origins, she was definitely the most interesting pirate magical girl I'd ever seen. all because a GM told me I couldn't have a medusa pirate girl.
Limitations definitely make for more interesting stories.
Who's to say it wouldn't have been more interesting if you had the medusa/pirate hybrid?
But I can respect that limitation because it coheres with the setting. The GM was keeping his or her RP internally consistent (based on his or her vision of what the RP should involve). I think your original ideas--your creativity--were restricted on account of the need for logical consistency, but the limitation wasn't so strong as to restrict all of your ideas. Maybe it would have been more interesting to have a medusa/pirate magical girl, or maybe it wouldn't have been. But it wasn't necessarily all that it could have been (and you acknowledged that yourself).
Speaking for myself, if you leave me with an empty slate in which I could create a complete world without any limitations or restrictions and with full resources to do whatever the hell I wanted...
...I would never finish.
Given a decent structure of limitations, I can have a theme to base off, and then adapt to an extent that the result is original. Yet what I created was based off something else. Perhaps it was a desire to improve upon the original image, or just a spike of creativity caused by looking at something else. But well chosen limitations do, in their own little ways, make me more inclined to follow through on creating things.
Speaking for myself, if you leave me with an empty slate in which I could create a complete world without any limitations or restrictions and with full resources to do whatever the hell I wanted...
...I would never finish.
Given a decent structure of limitations, I can have a theme to base off, and then adapt to an extent that the result is original. Yet what I created was based off something else. Perhaps it was a desire to improve upon the original image, or just a spike of creativity caused by looking at something else. But well chosen limitations do, in their own little ways, make me more inclined to follow through on creating things.
That's the point I made in the setting section. Logic, consistency, and a setting provide direction and, by preventing confusion, encourage creation. Like I said in my introduction, I don't paint restrictions in a negative light, because some of them are important and useful.
@whizzball1 It was not necessary, but she would have fallen in with every other "let's roll a bunch of random crap together and see what we get" magical girls. The point was that I actually got to keep my original idea, which was a character that could stun on sight and fight with their hair. The limitation only made those aspects more interesting and make sense. Well, as far as magical girls go.
Another character for something entirely different was only allowed to have 1 element. So even though I wanted to make a character that could control temperature {heat and freeze things} I decided to stick with fire. I couldn't freeze the ground and skate on it, but I could turn it molten and slide on the liquid magma. etc. That character was one of the only ones that was able to use fire as a utility, versus everyone else who used fire as a purely offensive power.
@whizzball1 It was not necessary, but she would have fallen in with every other "let's roll a bunch of random crap together and see what we get" magical girls. The point was that I actually got to keep my original idea, which was a character that could stun on sight and fight with their hair. The limitation only made those aspects more interesting and make sense. Well, as far as magical girls go.
Another character for something entirely different was only allowed to have 1 element. So even though I wanted to make a character that could control temperature {heat and freeze things} I decided to stick with fire. I couldn't freeze the ground and skate on it, but I could turn it molten and slide on the liquid magma. etc. That character was one of the only ones that was able to use fire as a utility, versus everyone else who used fire as a purely offensive power.
That's why I don't contend with limitations that are made for the sake of consistency. But both of those sets of ideas came at the cost of others. It seems to me from your examples and others that a limitation always comes at the cost of a net loss of potential ideas, but also that limitations encourage variation of ideas.
Out of curiosity, can you say with certainty that the ideas you used in place of your old ones were more interesting? If you never got to use your old ones, can you really say that you would have been less entertained with the ideas you didn't get to use? What combinations could you have made if you had access to both melting and freezing? I acknowledge that that's a lot of what ifs and hypotheticals.
At the very least, you were entertained by your idea in the context of that roleplay's setting, but you lost the chance of another. Considering that you would have been entertained either way, the limitations were basically positive—but I wouldn't say that the idea you were forced to use was definitely more interesting than the idea you wanted to use in the first place. EDIT: This is more of a rhetorical question: if you had been given a free choice between, say, your two magical girls, and you hadn't yet tried either, which would you have chosen? I'll go as far as to say you would have chosen the idea where you had all the backstory you wanted and the relationship between Medusa and the magical girl. You were entertained either way, but not necessarily more interested.
I don't think that unambiguously set boundaries are necessary given a set level of expectation prior to beginning. Human beings are able to deduce the boundaries of their environment without explicitly being informed of what they are to greater degrees as they mature. The reason humanity does not need to create rules to govern social interaction is because it is generally a given that we know and will abide by those unspoken regulations. When somebody violates these guidelines, it makes people uncomfortable and pushes them to assume that there is something wrong with that person for that very reason. Boundaries are best when self-set because when operating on a high level, you know what the logical result of a set of actions will be. Otherwise, you end up with a massive rule structure because there's no way to cover every possible case when people will abide by the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. So long as there is reasonable trust that others will be both mature enough to understand these implicit boundaries as well as reasonable enough to respect them, there is little reason to implement a particularly rigid structure for boundaries.
Of course, there is the distinct possibility that somebody driving the story wishes to go about it a certain way, but in the end, that also limits the creativity and purpose of this site entirely—introducing other individuals also introduces randomness and unique paths. The greater the restrictions on the possible paths, the farther it drifts from a collaboratively driven work and the closer it approaches a work by a singular author who may have had several ghost writers assist him in the creation process. While this is not necessarily an inherently negative way of going about things, I do believe that it goes against the spirit of these games or stories in the first place. While somebody may prefer a "healthy medium," the governing structure and restrictions on a story (or lack thereof) will cause the medium in its entirety to drift toward one of those two extremes. While I personally prefer to choose an extreme and create a foundation on top of it, I can see why others may be inclined as to choose another route. I feel as they may be limiting their own enjoyment in the end by doing so (though perhaps not; that is not for me to say), but that is another discussion entirely and outside the scope of this thread.
No one is going to dispute the fact that more freedom means more possibilities. The problem is people tend to use that freedom to take shortcuts instead of making something more unique and interesting. It forces you to think harder in order to make your character stand out. I know weaponised hair isn't uncommon in anime. But how many times have you seen people burned with such a weapon? Same with my fire character. you would think that my original character would have more abilities, but there was virtually no difference between the fire one and the hot and cold one. While thinking of the character as a duel elemental build definitely made the fire character more interesting, the fire character feels like they would fit better into a roleplay.
In fact, I joined another magical girl RP a few months ago. It had a CYOA system in place, so you basically rolled for a bunch of powers. It would have been acceptable to just make the character a pirate-griffen-chimera, but I restricted myself to only using pirate attributes again. Her wings were converted into sails, she used a ship cannon as a weapon to utilize her high strength and dexterity scores, etc. I feel my self imposed limitations made my character more interesting.
You should definitely let your imagination run wild. think of powers and atributes for your characters that don't make sense or wouldn't be allowed. But then challenge yourself to refine their attributes until they make sense in the setting. That works for anything from powers to backstory. Wanna do something with robots in a medieval RP? Use golums instead. Want to use magic in a strongly science fiction setting? Bust out those nannomachines that can act as fireballs and wizzard spells.
I agree with your comment earlier about what-ifs and hypothetical. Topics like this tend to become huge think tanks, and I'm more about seeing things in practice. How about you make a crazy RP character for an rp. link me to the RP, and then create a wild character (in this topic) that you would make without limits. Give them a dragon tail, cyborg augmentation, waifu-level deity that watches over them, and a really, really crazy backstory if you want. Do whatever. It does have to be something you find interesting, that's the only catch. Then I'll make a character that recaptures what you made in a unified theme, and we can discuss the two characters.
Freedom means that the easy choice is always available, and by limiting these choices you are creating a challenge for people. People work naturally with a challenge and will try to find ways around it, both creative and lazy ways.
I don't wanna say too much more cause I feel others will be able to explain better than me, but creativity is a direct result of having a limitation and it brings about the skill of problem solving.
I think there's some confusion among terms. To have ideas limited by setting, plot etc. doesn't necessarily mean that creativity is limited. Also, do you equate creativity with ingenuity? When faced with a creative framework, an artist has to work harder to accomplish her goals. Does the situation therefore limit or encourage creativity? Or are limitations and lack of limitations two different kinds of stimuli that both engender creativity in different ways?
I think there's some confusion among terms. To have ideas limited by setting, plot etc. doesn't necessarily mean that creativity is limited. Also, do you equate creativity with ingenuity? When faced with a creative framework, an artist has to work harder to accomplish her goals. Does the situation therefore limit or encourage creativity? Or are limitations and lack of limitations two different kinds of stimuli that both engender creativity in different ways?
Knowing that I could possibly be misunderstood I just consolidated dictionary definitions of creativity and came to the conclusion that creativity is the use of original ideas. Ingenuity and inventiveness I do not equate with creativity, but I do believe that they work together with creativity. I don't think they foster creativity but use it instead, but I also think ingenuity can be used despite the lack of a framework. @LegendBegins seems to somewhat make this point—the unspoken limitations of skill and experience are much more freeing than other limitations but still encourage the inventive use of creativity; I can vouch for that from my own experience.
Given what I've said, I think the answer to your question is that they engender ingenuity in different ways, but that that is different from creativity.
Freedom means that the easy choice is always available, and by limiting these choices you are creating a challenge for people. People work naturally with a challenge and will try to find ways around it, both creative and lazy ways.
I don't wanna say too much more cause I feel others will be able to explain better than me, but creativity is a direct result of having a limitation and it brings about the skill of problem solving.
I think that it's more that problem-solving is a direct result of having a limitation. One may have endless ideas up their sleeves, and writing and roleplaying give people a chance to use those ideas. But, on account of any limitations involved in a story or a roleplay, some ideas are lost, unusable. I'll make careful note that I don't consider that a bad thing right out, because problem-solving is another skill that's important to writing. The ideas that remain feasible may only be that way because you worked to make them feasible.
Ultimately, limitations restrict imagination but encourage reasoning. Another way to say it might be that limitations restrict the right brain but encourage the left brain. Whether that's a bad thing or not depends entirely on the context.
Ultimately, limitations restrict imagination but encourage reasoning. Another way to say it might be that limitations restrict the right brain but encourage the left brain. Whether that's a bad thing or not depends entirely on the context.
I feel that in the human brain, creativity is a mixture of reasoning and creativity.
I feel that in the human brain, creativity is a mixture of reasoning and creativity.
I don't know if we can say that with a level of certainty. All this time I've been going off the dictionary definition, but if we all agree to redefine creativity as imagination and ingenuity in equal measure then the argument takes on a completely different colour (and also I'd rewrite all of my examinations).
Does that mean you'll do it? Alright, I look folward to seeing what comes out.
My only condition for this challenge is that you pick an RP that gives me at least some leeway. Obviously I won't be able to make anything that can fight like a dragon-prince-demon-wizzard if you choose a generic true to life school drama as the base RP. If you're making a mid-teir combat orientated character, pick a mid teir combat orientated RP. Other than that though, you're free to do as you please.
@whizzball1 A magical school RP? I see no reason why that wouldn't work. The magic system interests me as well. Now you just have to create a character that you find interesting, creative limitations be damned. Filling out the character sheet would probably be the easiest way to do this.
