Large Language Models (LLMs) promise to transform interactive games by enabling non-player characters (NPCs) to sustain unscripted dialogue. Yet it remains unclear whether constrained prompts actually improve player experience. We investigate this question through The Interview, a voice-based detective game powered by GPT-4o. A within-subjects usability study ($N=10$) compared high-constraint (HCP) and low-constraint (LCP) prompts, revealing no reliable experiential differences beyond sensitivity to technical breakdowns. Guided by these findings, we redesigned the HCP into a hybrid JSON+RAG scaffold and conducted a synthetic evaluation with an LLM judge, positioned as an early-stage complement to usability testing. Results uncovered a novel pattern: scaffolding effects were role-dependent: the Interviewer (quest-giver NPC) gained stability, while suspect NPCs lost improvisational believability. These findings overturn the assumption that tighter constraints inherently enhance play. Extending fuzzy-symbolic scaffolding, we introduce \textit{Symbolically Scaffolded Play}, a framework in which symbolic structures are expressed as fuzzy, numerical boundaries that stabilize coherence where needed while preserving improvisation where surprise sustains engagement.