Humor and GNS

[Ron Edwards]

Hi MK,

I think introducing the issue of humor is causing problems of its own. I have experienced funny stuff in all three modes of play without stretching or adding Narrativist elements. It seems to me that including or creating humor is not, itself, G, N, or S - it acts as a modifier of whatever mode is operating at the time.

Best,
Ron

[Seth L. Blumberg]

It seems to me that including or creating humor is not, itself, G, N, or S - it acts as a modifier of whatever mode is operating at the time.

What, then, of an instance of play where someone is prioritizing the production of humorous elements through play of the game? What if that's the priority? Are there three "shades" of humor-centric play corresponding to the three modes, or do we need to add a fourth mode? This question has come up before and been brushed off; maybe it's time to tackle it head-on.

I've always thought of humor-centric play as Gamist, on the grounds that, when I am prioritizing humor, I am usually trying to be funnier than the next guy. Is that everyone's experience?

[Mike Holmes]

I've always thought of humor-centric play as Gamist, on the grounds that, when I am prioritizing humor, I am usually trying to be funnier than the next guy. Is that everyone's experience?

Certainly the case in Toon, where the funniest people get points for it. I think the most important point is that humor is only Narrativist if it's addressing a Narrativist Premise. So, lot's of irony and satire will fall under this category, but much humor will not.

Mike

[contracycle]

Valamir asks:

2) I'm not sure how or why you're equating humorous character histories and character anecdotes to narrativism at all.

Narrativism does not mean having a series of really cool/interesting/funny events to relate.

Consider that possibly that might be the only time we've seen it done, because "its not serious" and the social contract binders on player creation come off.  I suspect this is the case for me.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Prioritizing humor in the absence of G, N, or S? During role-playing? Seth, it's easy. When this happens, the role-playing ceases and everyone's just hangin' out socially. That certainly occurs; it can even occur during a perfectly functional game as a kind of break. But if you aren't prioritizing at least one of G, N, or S in an Explorative context, then the role-playing has stopped. It's not there.

Now, I do think that humor can "shade" or significantly alter G, N, or S in action. Toon play is mainly humorous Gamism in my experience, and a lot of Donjon play is too. A hell of a lot of Call of Cthulhu play is humorous Sim (emphasis on Situation, subset literary-pastiche). InSpectres is very funny Narrativism.

So I dust off my hands. All settled, right? But that's not the sense I'm getting from the posts ...

What's the big deal? I smell a hot-button; this mention of humor is getting everyone all shifting around on their chairs and looking like pompously-pissed-off white guys. What's up?

Best,
Ron

[MK Snyder]

And a white gal...

Well, bringing it back around to Hackmaster, I have observed that *in addition to* the self-aware stepping-back humor of ribbing the medium--which would not fall under any GNS priorities--it's also a great system for creating funny stories that stand as funy stories were they removed from the game and treated as funny fantasy stories.

This, to me, smacks of Nemism--for that game. Something I don't think has been fully appreciated--for that game.

[Walt Freitag]

What's the big deal? I smell a hot-button; this mention of humor is getting everyone all shifting around on their chairs and looking like pompously-pissed-off white guys. What's up?

Ron, I call you for unfair discourse. I would like to respond to your argument, but I now see no way of doing so without being pre-labeled as pompous, angry, white, and male. I can admit only the latter two accusations.

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Walt,

That's fair. I withdraw the nasty crack, although my antennae are still up regarding the sudden tension-increase regarding humor. I'll put a lid on the cerebral processing until they get me more data.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

This, to me, smacks of Nemism--for that game. Something I don't think has been fully appreciated--for that game.

I think you have a point. I think that is the idea of Hackmaster to produce a self-referentially satirical statement about the development of our own hobby. It seems to be a sort of "Meta-Narrativism"; creating a Narrativist statement through playing in an overly Gamist manner. Which is quite interesting (there's also the question of how effective it is, or whether or not play of that sort is sustainable, etc).

But that doesn't mean that humor is a priori Narrativist in any way. Just that this is the intent in one game. As I've said, you don't really think that Toon is about creating theme by addressing a moral or ethical premise, do you? No, it's about the Gmaist challenge of who can make everybody laugh hardest.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Elfs did this too, and ... (can't help it, trying, trying, nope! there it goes) well before Hackmaster.

In all of the cases discussed: some old-school AD&D, Toon, Hackmaster, and Elfs, I maintain that play itself is primarily Gamist. The funny stories told are mainly player-referential, or if character-referential, highly couched in Pawn-stance terms. Therefore I don't see any special reason to think of them as akin to the stories created through Narrativist play, especially in terms of process.

The humor discussion has moved pretty strongly away from the thread topic, though. I'll do some splitting.

OK, all split. But the break isn't too clean, so folks are encouraged to check Problems with the term "Premise" to see where all this came from.

Best,
Ron

[talysman]

I think humor in roleplaying is a touchy subject, for a variety of reasons.

first, humor in the context of play often shows up as an interruption, more a dropping-out-of-play than a goal of play itself. it's a return to a pure social level outside of the game, in these cases, as Ron says. and in these cases, a little out-of-game humor is tolerated, but I'm sure we've all had experiences where one player decides to break up a play session with frequent wisecracks; one such experience is enough to make just about anyone leery of allowing too much out-of-game humor. but the question is: where do you draw the line?

it's really more of a subjective, social contract issue. some people are not going to tolerate much out-of-game humor at all, since out-of-game humor tends to act as a "distancing" mechanism: by its very action, it cuts off the player from the character and game world, making the game world (or some specific element) the target of humor. if one or more players are trying to be as immersive into their character or the experience of the world as possible, they will be offended by humor at the expense of those characters or the world they live in.

a second issue is that in many cases where the humor is deliberately ejected (including many published game materials,) the humor is not really that funny. a lot of D&D modules fit into that category, in my opinion. some people don't seem to catch the difference between joking with your friends and professional humor.

which leads to yet another issue: not everyone likes the same kinds of humor. if one person in a gaming group announces "let's do a silly game!" and by some miracle all agree, you still can run into problems with one person preferring slapstick and puns, one preferring "Porky's"-style crude humor, one preferring surrealist humor...

a few games specifically designed to be humorous -- Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space, GURPS Goblins -- do seem to do a good job of it. I think the key here is that the game concept is ludicrous but the play is "serious", in a way; you have source material you are trying to remain true to. also, in the goofier backgrounds like Toon, out-of-game humor is transformed into in-game humor; all those wisecracks someone might make to interrupt the game become used as in-game actions instead.

in contrast, other humorous games get their humor from another level. I think Hackmaster, as some have said here, falls into this category, although I haven't played Hackmaster myself and can't confirm it. I do know that in a couple D&D games I played, the character actions were taken seriously, but they appeared humorous outside the game world, such as when an adventure party accidentally pisses off a number of powerful factions, then spends a lot of time escaping from one frying pan into someone else's fire.

but I think those bad experiences with out-of-game humor can turn some people off to the potentially enjoyable in-game humor or the bi-level humor of a serious game with humorous undertones. some people become so sensitive to humor in role-playing that they object to it automatically, any time they encounter it. they even begin to object to concepts that seem absurd but are intended to be completely serious within the game world. I ran one GURPS Fantasy game in the Yrth setting and had one player object to another player's moslem reptileman character concept, even though moslem reptilemen are a serious part of the game world.

as far as actual play goes, then, humor in the game is the same as graphic descriptions of violence or sex: you have to discuss as a group how much or what kinds of humor you want in the game, or play will be uncomfortable.

[MK Snyder]

[quote="Mike Holmes As I've said, you don't really think that Toon is about creating theme by addressing a moral or ethical premise, do you? No, it's about the Gmaist challenge of who can make everybody laugh hardest.

Mike[/quote]

It doesn't have to be played Gemist--it can be played Nemist with the priority of making anybody laugh at all.

Such that, were the game chronicle turned into a storyboard, it would make a good cartoon--removing all reference to RPG's at all.

Similarly, Hackmaster can also be played with Nemist priorities.

This is easier to imagine if you are playing with a group of children, who lack the adult tendency to get humor out of the awareness that it is an rpg (yeah, this is a game, with rules, we're grownups...).

The characters and stories generated would be funny characters in other media--sitcoms, comics, cartoons.

[MK Snyder]

Oh, and I want to point out--the GNS model is about *play*, not games.

The discussion concerning humor keeps sliding into a discussion about the games themselves.

That would be a different model.

I have played Hackmaster with children in what I consider a Nemist fashion. This is very likely not as frequently encountered with adults. I pointed out that Hackmaster as a game could so be played, and I think that is underappreciated aspect of Hackmaster.

I'm not saying it was the first. I'm not saying it's the only way to play it. I'm not saying it was designed that way.

As for the testy guys on uncomfortable chairs--yeah, it's making me testy that my observation is being questioned because it doesn't fit others' observations or biases. That annoys me.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi MK,

I think I need an example of real play and events in order to see what you mean. It still eludes me why humorous play isn't easily, non-problematically classified into funny-G, funny-S, and funny-N, or why funny might necessarily imply N. If I'm misunderstanding your point, let me know.

Also, it might be that we're talking about (say) N acting as a "supporter" of the G, in my functional-hybrid sense, which I think applies very well to playing Elfs.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

I think that is the idea of Hackmaster to produce a self-referentially satirical statement about the development of our own hobby.

And the intent of Vampire is to explore the pathos and angst of being a Vampire...see my point?

You're talking game and system designer priorities, rather than actual play decision priorities, which can be widely divergent dependent on system and gaming group -- one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Hence, I'm with Ron on this one...can't see what the hullaballo about 'humor' in a game, or as the 'focus' of a game, is all about. We're talking priorities of decisions in play, here.  Humor can easily be a part of S, N or G.

It's not what you're getting/producing afterwards (ie: a humorous anecdote; a smack-down on the history of the hobby), or what you state you are trying to achieve, it's about what you actually do.

Are you being funny because you want to experience something humorous, because you'll "get more points" for it or because you're trying to create (at that moment) a humorous observation about the subject?

Thinking about it, in principle this actually sounds like the whole "but ALL role-playing games are about making stories!" discussion of Narrativism, though obviously the elements differ.