Humor in RPGs / Comedy RPGs

[Ben Lehman]

(Not certain if this should be in RPG Theory or GNS... It relates to RPG theory, but also to GNS...)

Something which I have harped on for a while in other threads is my disagreement with the (apparently widely held?) sentiment that humor is something which happens seperate from GNS play priorities -- simply because I've played in games in which the primary creative goal was to make the other participants bust a gut.

reference threads:

Help a GNS Illiterate:  
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6368&highlight=humor

Humor and GNS
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4192&highlight=humor

I have realized that I was using the wrong vocabulary.

The common experience with humor in RPGs is this:  Someone says something hilarious, every breaks out into laughter and play stops while people catch their breath / remove food items from their nostrils.  Sometimes, you might even write it down (or even http://aralis.net/raven/games/flicker.html">post it online.)  This sort of humor, I believe, takes place outside of GNS priorities.  I think it's a social contract level sort of thing -- pretty much the same way humor works in any other situation.

However, there are also Comedy RPGs, which I believe are an entirely different beast.  I have played in a few of these and, as far as I can tell, the generation of humor is the primary creative goal of play.  Teenagers From Outer Space is a game (note that the system is effectively lite enough to float away, and does explicitly encourage this) that seems to want to be played like this.  TOON may be another, I haven't read it.  WTF!? is a game developed here which seems to be along similar lines.  I have used Marvel Superheroes for such games, as well.

The point here is what is prioritized in play.  When trying to decide "Should I do this," the participant's primary internal question is "Do I find this funny? / Would the other participants find it funny?"

At first I thought (see reference thread #1) that this might be a particular form of non-moral Narrativism.  I don't think so any more.  I think that this represents, effectively, a style of play that we might call GNS-exotic -- it doesn't fit into any of the categories because the creative agenda is fundamentally weird.

I think that there might be any number of these "exotics" floating about.  Comedy is one that I've encountered frequently.  One could also consider the social jockeying that goes on in LARPs to be another form (in which case the internal question is "which participant do I want to favor / curry favor with?") but one could also consider that a form of Gamism.

I think that the distinguishing features that make Comedy an exotic are quite simple:  First, it is reasonably rare as a mode of play.  Second, it does not lend itself to dysfunction, simply because its presence is obvious, and can be easily dealt with if it is inappropriate.  Third, most players have another "preferred" mode of play and only do comedy on occasion.  Thus, it is easy to not notice it, especially when concentrating on resolving dysfunctional play.

So I guess this post doesn't really have a question attached to it except: Can people see where I'm coming from?  Does this make sense?  Is anyone else familiar with this style of play?  Can you think of ways that games might be designed to facilitate comedy in particular?

yrs--
--Ben

[AnyaTheBlue]

Dear Indie Ben,

I'm not sure I agree that this is completely foreign to the GNS triad.

I wonder if it's not a kind of Sim (being funny is what's being Simulated).

Or a kind of Gamism (being the funniest is winning!)

Or a kind of Narrativism (the exciting interpersonal interactions that are going to be explored are Humorous ones).

Something else that occurs to me is that there are some games, like Paranoia, that are themselves more or less completely internally 'serious', but set up a particular kind of shared imaginary space where a certain kind of humor is heavily encouraged in the players at a metagame level.  That is, it's got a sort of feedback loop that links the in-game character behavior and the metagame table-talk level, the former encouraging the kind of meta-game humor you mention above.

I mean, you can use the Toon or TFOS rules to run perfectly 'straight' pulp adventure, superhero games, or Anime-based SF without real rules changes.

I think the humor might be a Color and Situation issue, and less something that's co-eval with the GNS triad.  I think the kind of humor connected to the game, how it is evoked, and where it happens (in-game or meta-game) are all important.  This may well dovetail into the Technique/Rule/Stance thing that's going on in another thread hereabouts.  

The real problem with this is that once you've dissected a joke, it's not always as funny when you're done... :/

Although I might be misunderstanding.

[xiombarg]

I have to agree with Dana here. Paranoia is largely Gamist/Simulationist. Toon is very Simulationist, and ditto for TFOS. In fact, given the strong bias toward Simulationism in most commercial games, it's not suprising that most comedy RPGs are essentially Simulationist -- it's just the "world" one is exploring happens to be a funny one. I mean, start with a funny Situation, and the results are funny regardless of what you do.

And I'll note one of the most oft-cited Narrativist games out there -- InSpectres -- is all about the comedy, to large degree. In fact, that's why it's considered a great intoducion to Narrativism -- the comedic aspect makes it accessible.

Consider mechanics, which pop up in such games, where you get Currency (XP, plot points, whatever) for getting the GM to laugh. Arguably quite Gamist or Narrativist, depending on how the Currency can then be used.

Ben, I think your mistake was thinking it's mostly associated with one mode, and it's not. Comedy can be produced by a variety of techniques, which can be used within a variety of GNS modes.

So it's not any more exotic than any other agenda. It's just that comedy is hard to do consistently, so it's a rare agenda for that reason, not because it's "exotic" in any way.

Also, consider that "comedy" is a very broad thing, covering everything from toilet humor to satire. All the games you cite aim for a particular TYPE of funny, using the same techniques used for any other tone, like dread (horror games)... Do you consider games intended to scare people to be "exotic" as well?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ben,

We've been 'round on this one a little bit before. I have to say that Dana has nailed my POV right on the nose and have little to add. "What Dana said."

Best,
Ron

[Ben Lehman]

I'm not sure I agree that this is completely foreign to the GNS triad.

I wonder if it's not a kind of Sim (being funny is what's being Simulated).

Or a kind of Gamism (being the funniest is winning!)

Or a kind of Narrativism (the exciting interpersonal interactions that are going to be explored are Humorous ones).

IB>  This is exactly my thinking.  I am presently pondering the conclusion that it is "neither fish nor fowl," as it were.

Something else that occurs to me is that there are some games, like Paranoia, that are themselves more or less completely internally 'serious', but set up a particular kind of shared imaginary space where a certain kind of humor is heavily encouraged in the players at a metagame level.  That is, it's got a sort of feedback loop that links the in-game character behavior and the metagame table-talk level, the former encouraging the kind of meta-game humor you mention above.

IB>  Although I'm familiar with the playstyle, I'm not certain if it's exclusively what I'm talking about.  For instance, a superhero game with characters like "The Drapery" is not, by any means, internally serious.

I mean, you can use the Toon or TFOS rules to run perfectly 'straight' pulp adventure, superhero games, or Anime-based SF without real rules changes.

IB>  Absolutely.  Again, I'm talking about a playstyle, rather than a ruleset.  I'm wondering if there even could be designed a ruleset specifically to promote comedy.

I think the humor might be a Color and Situation issue, and less something that's co-eval with the GNS triad.  I think the kind of humor connected to the game, how it is evoked, and where it happens (in-game or meta-game) are all important.  This may well dovetail into the Technique/Rule/Stance thing that's going on in another thread hereabouts.  

See, this is my difficulty.
GNS defines "creative agenda," right?  What I'm saying is "what if your main creative goal is to make the other players laugh," rather than the exploration of a Premise, any sort of competition, or the existence of a strong dream.  The reason that I think that there might be other "exotics" is simply that it seems to me that there are an infinite number of differing creative agendas.

The type of play that I'm describing is quite akin to an extended improv comedy routine, with occasional breaks to roll dice.  What sort of GNS classification would an improv comedy routine fit into, provided it can be considered role-playing at all?

The real problem with this is that once you've dissected a joke, it's not always as funny when you're done... :/

BL>  Yeah, well, sadly, talking about this type of play is sadly not nearly as fun as actually doing it.  But aren't things always that way?

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  I'm sorry to go over the ground that I've trod before, but I had an "aha" moment and realized that I might have been talking past people.

[jdagna]

Ben,

I'd have to check Ron's Venn diagrams again to try and pick exactly where I'd put humor, but I've always been of the feeling that it occurs above GNS, such as at the social contract level (where the contract is "we're here to laugh and have a good time").

I think in every case you'd be able to find a G/N/S preference at some level of the game, even the participants are primarily focused on the social level.  One thing you might find is that the humor and social aspects mask otherwise disfuctional play - everyone might be using a totally different, constantly-shifting or even conflicting GNS mode but no one cares because they're still focused on the social contract level and anything goes so long as it fits the agreement to be funny.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Ben,

Let me try this - you can have a goal (many of 'em) for play that is independent of G, N or S.  Play as a whole will STILL sort itself out into G, or N, or S as PRIORITIES (where Priority is really a special jargon-term that describes patterns of observed behavior regarding what happens in play).  I mean, it might not matter so much to people that they are Challenging each other to Step on Up and be funny (or whatever), because what they consider important is to be funny - but they ARE Stepping on Up.  Or engaging in the Dream.  Or making Story Now.

G, N, and S are the Priorites visible in what actually happens.  That folks also have stuff they want to happen in play is fine - and important - but not the same kind of thing as GNS is looking at.

At least, that's how I look at it,

Gordon

[M. J. Young]

GNS defines "creative agenda," right?  What I'm saying is "what if your main creative goal is to make the other players laugh,"....

Put exactly that way, I'd say that you're playing gamist. The challenge is to make everyone laugh, and the reward is to have succeeded in making the other players laugh. There is probably an unstated assumption here that we are impressing each other with our ability to be funny, and each is trying to one-up the others to be the funniest guy at the table. We're not necessarily going to pick "the funniest guy at the table", but we are going to leave with the feeling that some of the players are particularly funny.

That's the same sort of competetion that exists in trying to be the best player, the best tactician, the best puzzle solver--in all challenge-based play we're trying to be the best, and show how good we are. If our goal is to make the other players laugh, that suggests competition at trying to make each other laugh.

That doesn't mean that all humor play is gamist.

One of my favorite moments in Star Trek Next Generation occurs in an episode in which Data has been trying to understand what humor is. He sets up a computer program to simulate a comedy club, and has the computer recreate a twenty-first century comedian (played by Joe Piscopo?) so he can study what makes people laugh. Guinan shoes up to talk with him about it. In the end, there's a moment when an alien, an android, and a computer-generated hologram are discussing, in all seriousness, what it is that makes humans laugh. I found it entirely absurd and humorous in its own right. However, there is an issue there, and you could set up a narrativist game about the premise of what is humor, and so have narrativist play that was very funny.

You can also simulate totally absurd situations. Consider the film Men in Black. Will Smith is the comedian, right? Tommy Lee Jones is the straight man. Yet Smith has said that the thing that really made the film work, that made it so hysterically funny, was that Jones played it dead serious, as if it were all absolutely real; he never batted an eye at any of the crazy absurd things that happened, because the joke existed in pretending it was the reality. If played as a game, that could be a very funny simulationist game.

Which stance you're in doesn't determine what mode you're playing. How you apportion credibility is not in itself determinative. DFK doesn't define GNS. In like manner, humor is not confined within GNS, but is an element that may or may not exist in any mode.

Is that clearer?

--M. J. Young