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

Ron wrote: 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.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: 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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

quot;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

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.

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

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

There is humor at the game. This is the sort of disruptive stuff like Monty Python gags and stories you heard at work and that kind of thing. At that point, you're definitely in the social level, out of the game entirely.

There is humor about the game. This happens when someone starts to see absurdities in the setting or the system and making fun of the whole. I've got an innkeeper in one of my D&D game cities who speaks with an Irish brogue. Only once has anyone noticed that there's no Ireland in my game and he's the only person in the world that has that accent. But it's the kind of thing that could disrupt a game if someone suddenly starts picking at it and finding the absurdity. That doesn't mean it isn't enjoyed by some of the players; but again, it's out of the game.


There is humor from the game. We tell a great story of one player character who attempted to save himself by using one of two psionic teleportation skills he knew to move his spaceship out of danger. Thing was, one of the skills had already been shown to move ships without contents, and when he chose the wrong one in his haste he dumped his entire crew in space--a moment we still laugh about. Those funny stories are still a bit disruptive; but they're something of a metagame humor, something that is funny because we're both participants and observers.

There is humor in the game. One of my player characters is very gamist with an occasional narrativist drift. He (the character) married a non-player character, a very spunky princess he'd rescued. It is part of the world now that he is married to her, and she is the one person who can always see through his bluster and knows that for all his posturing and projecting and appearance of confidence, he hasn't got a clue what he's doing or how to make it work. A simple "uh-huh" or "yeah, right" from her has the entire table in stitches (including the player) because she bursts his illusions about himself. She is more than just a comic foil, but she is still a comic foil, giving his stories that humorous charm. I've had players whose play is inherently fun because it's funny. It isn't that the player is making out-of-character jokes, but that the characters are making in-character jokes and playing in character when they are funny people. That is not at all disruptive. It is no more disruptive than the one-liners Bruce Willis spouts in his action films during the fight scenes, or those momentary calms in horror pictures when you thought the killer was going to jump out and he didn't, and then he did. In-game humor can be very entertaining.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with whether the game play is narrativist, gamist, or simulationist. It only has to do with whether the characters in the game are funny people and the players can carry it off effectively.

--M. J. Young

MK Snyder wrote: 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.

Ah, I just figured out how to explain the problem I have with humorous play being interpreted as Gamist play because the participants are "competing to see who can get the biggest laugh."

Of course, they're clearly not doing that in the examples from my own play that I'm thinking about. But as patently obvious from experience as that appears to me, I can't deny that there is some shadow of competition involved, just as there is in all role playing. To refute the convenient gamist classification, I have to identify another higher priority.

That priority is expressing creativity. Not in competition against the other players, but for its own sake and for the shared enjoyment of all.

Expressing-creativity-through character, setting, situation, etc. is a form of exploration-of those things. This specific form of exploration being the highest priority makes such play unambiguously Simulationist.

Only if there were clear evidence of competition being a higher priority than expressing creativity -- such as players passing up opportunities to deliver appropriate straight lines because it would mean other competing players would get the laugh -- would I call such play Gamist.

----------

This is not to claim that all play intended to express creativity is Simulationist. Only in the absence of a higher Gamist or Narrativist priority. In Gamist Toon play, for example, players express creativity through inventive competition in a creative arena. Same with competitive storytelling games like Once Upon a Time. And creativity is probably definitionally implied in Narrativist play, unless there's a way to have player authorship without player expression of creativity.

Given that the goal of "expressing creativity" can exist in all GNS modes, can we further say that it exists so universally as to be meaningless for analyzing play (like "having fun")? I don't believe so. It's clearly not always a priority. None of the following instances of play put priority on expressing creativity at the instant of play: a player choosing the most conventional solution to a problem because it's the most effective; a player making character decisions based on a character personality/behavior model; a GM describing pre-prepared setting details; a GM performing "refereeing" functions in a resolution mechanism. And when it is a priority, it's usually being exercised within a specific domain -- for example, a GM might express creativity in narrating an evocative description of a scene, while the scene itself is straight out of a book. Or the reverse: the verbal description may be as neutral and to the point as possible, while the GM is expressing creativity by inventing an interesting scene on the fly at the moment of play.

Now, here's the thing: I believe my theory that "expressing creativity through interacting with setting, character, etc. is a form of exploration" is a strong one. But it's a different kind of exploration that's likely to often be incompatible with other forms. If prioritization of expressing creativity in the absence of another higher priority is Simulationism, it's a Simulationism for which "prioritiztion of in-game-world causality" is an utterly inaccurate description.

In this thread I talked about types of decision-making that while technically classifiable as Simulationism, are not well facilitated by game design elements that are normally considered Simulationist. I referred there to "prioritization of the creation of specific outcome qualities." I think there may be a direct relation between that and the "prioritization of expression of creativity" described here. These concepts don't contradict GNS in any way, but they introduce distinctions that GNS doesn't address that could be useful in game design and in analyzing play. Including accounting for humor as an in-play priority that can at times outweigh other key priorities (including competition and in-game-world causality), without having to classify such behavior as Gamism on a flimsy pretext, or cast it out from the sphere of role-playing entirely.

- Walt

Ron wrote: 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.

Walt wrote: Of course, they're clearly not doing that in the examples from my own play that I'm thinking about.