[What a Shambles!] Are some mechanics funnier than others?

[iain]

Following on from the thread here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20144.0
that was about my initial thoughts on the game and how to balance comedy and horror, i had begun to think about system. I was considering a kind of resource management system, whereby characters would have 3 main resources; Guts, Love and Weapons, that can be spent to overcome challenges place their by other players. These challenges would be of the zombie type, whereas story based challenges are dealt within a more abstract fashion.

My question is this. Osero was saying that resource management automatically makes him think of a serious game, so do you guys think that certain basic mechanis i.e. dice, cards, resource management, lend themselves to different types of game and which is which i.e. are cards a more amusing option than cards and why?

Cheers
Iain

[TonyLB]

Resource management in an environment of scarcity is pretty serious business.  You're making tough choices:  Do I blow a point now, and risk not having that point later?

Resource management in an environment of plenty is hilarious.  You're no longer making tough choices, you're looking for opportunities to blow your resources, because more are right around the corner.

If you want to spot-test the difference, run two sessions of Nobilis:  one in which you give out few (or no) Miracle Points, and the second in which you are absolutely dedicated (as HG) to the proposition that you will give out at least 40 MPs during the course of the session ... give them out for funny lines, for any conceivable proximity to a flaw or restriction, for good ideas, for going to get the sodas.

If my experience holds true you'll notice a very different attitude from your players in the two different sessions.  Make sense?

[Callan S.]

Hi Iain,

I like Tony's idea, although I think the main currency your going for/the main points could be scarce. But the action points you get to try and obtain them are many. That means throwing tons of actions around in an effort to secure the main points. If you get what I mean - I'm speaking more like I'm talking about programming code here, I suppose.

In terms of paraphenalia that's funny, an old halloween game comes to mind where the host would put things into a bag like peeled grapes, apricot and other things. Then he holds the bag in front of people and they feel what's inside without seeing, and he describes the things inside as if they are body parts (peeled grapes = eyes, apricot = severed, shrivled ear). Some sort of variation on this, perhaps where the part the player gets determines some points, would make a very funny start.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Osero was saying that resource management automatically makes him think of a serious game

I think that reveals a personal bias, not an intrinsic quality of resource management. I mean, what if the resources are M&Ms, peanuts, or raisins, and you have to throw them in the air and catch them with your mouth to spend them? Or throw them into another player's mouth, to trade them/assist that player? Funny stuff.

I make this point to allude to a larger point: that a particular general mechanic can not, intrinsically, be deemed funny. It takes an implementation (Color?) to inject humor into the mechanic. Craps dice are not funny; obviously asymmetrical dice with silly graphics on their faces are. Uno cards are not funny; Munchkin cards are.

And that is just the object used in the mechanic. The other posters, above, make good points about how the use of the thing contributes to hilarity. Consider a theft or pick-up-sticks mechanism: resource swapping seems coldly tactical; but being able to swipe each other's tokens or snatch a token from the bidding pile if, say, the total number adds up to a factor of 7, is funny.

Hmmm... and in rambling along, I seem to have, perhaps, found a common thread for why the "how" of using things is funny: action. Token bidding has a connotation that encourages players to behave like cool poker sharks; my suggestion to have to throw food about to use "tokens" makes for humor because it's action. Token snatching and bid snatching leads to funny because of action.

And it would seem that humor in the things themselves (cards, dice, token) is related to the degree to which they are in some way whimsical, ironic, or--again--behave strangely (ex: the asymmetrical dice).

Anyway, I'll turn my ramble off here. Hope this helps to insipre, if not actually advise;
David

[David Berg]

I always found rolling on randomized tables full of absurd outcomes to be funny.  Exaggeration is funny.  In combat with zombies, I'd minimize the amount of "I hit it and sort of hurt it a bit" and maximize both "I cleave it in half, showering the room with gore!" and "I miss pathetically, lose my grip on my weapon, and send it flying into the priceless vase / small child / light bulb / cute animal / switch that turns on the jukebox!"

However you determine outcomes, try to provide entertaining descriptions of those outcomes.  (This could be a formal part of a system or just some advice and examples.)

Another thing I personally find funny (in the right kind of game) is when metagame incentives reward incoherent in-game behavior, and then the character has to justify why they did something. 

Example:
Player A has his character punt the goldfish bowl because it'll get Player A some Color Points.  All the other players know this, but in-game it seems insane; so, Player B's character yells, "What the hell are you doing?!"  Player A's character then goes, "I had to... because... bowls of water are... uh... they make zombies enraged... cuz seeing fish underwater reminds them what it was like to be underground!  Duh!  Everyone knows that!"

Sorry if I'm pushing the "that's stupid" end of the spectrum here; I've been working on a very "serious" game, and "funny" was a breath of fresh air for me.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  On thing  thought was clever was the use of the actual laughter in the game mechanic. For instance, in Toon, you get XPs if you make the GM laugh and you stun characters if you can make their players laugh.
  And I think David is tapping into something more valuable than mechanics. Get the flavor of the text right. That conveys tone and expectations pretty well...

[iain]

Hi guys,
great feedback so far thanks. I think I agree that mechanics are not funny in themselves, I was just garnering opinion on that one:-) The colour definetley adds the funny. At the moment the system uses d6s and you have the resources of

Guts: Survival skill and determination to face the horror
Love: How love is important to you
Weapons: This here is my BOOMSTICK!

Narration happens in a very simple statement way where each player takes it in turn to narrate for their character, and that statement can be blocked and altered by others through permission and denial statements, similar to 'Polaris'.

However a player can also introduce zombies into the equation by moving some threat from the pool in the middle, which gets created during scene setup, to the narrating player, who must use their guts, love or weapons to overcome the zombie threat. I will post more details in a seperate post and would be interested in hearing from those who wish to be involved in playtesting from the very beginning.

Cheers
Iain