D&D General Could Improv (and maybe Theatre) save your Roleplaying???

[Paul Farquhar]

Okay. Let's stop the bad rhetoric train right here.

'Punching down' is about people in a privileged position attacking those in a non-privilege position for being in that non-privileged position. In this case, people who are unable or uncomfortable with acting out things in character who would rather make use of in-game mechanics instead.

It has NOTHING to do with viewing the victim of such behavior as lesser, so this wasn't the magical reverse Uno 'well actually you're the bad guy' card you think it was.

But you seem to think you are "non-privileged", whilst other posters are "privileged". On a broadly anonymous internet forum It's hard to see how you (or the people you think are punching you) are establishing that.

I agree that "button pushing" is an unhelpful phrase.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sounds like you're selling a class. Which, now that I think of it, do you have any resource that talks about improv exercises? I regularly make stuff up on the fly because the players almost never do what I expect them to (which is awesome). But actual improv exercises? No clue what they would be.

I did an evening course in acting and drama at a community college a good many years ago. But such things can be expensive. But then many things associated with D&D (or most other hobbies) can be expensive. There may be a local amateur dramatic society you can join, but they tend to be expensive in terms of time commitments and starting at the bottom.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Both yes and no. It is going with the results that brings improvisation to the front. Will they fight, will they parley? How it will go down from one encounter to the next isn't that far from pure improvisations. There are degrees in improvisation. In fact we have a game in Québec (well, it is practice in almost all French countries now) that is called: "Improvisation". I know, very imaginative... The point is that there are two teams. Each other are given a theme and they must build a story about that theme.

Improvisations can be mixt or compared. An improvisation might be solo, unlimited, limited, a balance of opposing players or it might be unbalanced. At the end of the improvisation, a vote is called for from the audience to see which team will get the point.

The game itself is loosely base on hockey rules where there are two teams, three referee, is played iver three period of 20 minutesnd. There are penalties for not playing with the improvisation that your opponent has initiated, a heavy penalty is also given for just trying to make people laugh and not playing into the improvisation itself.
Categories range from singing, poetry, silent, normal and in the style of an author or movie. Special points are given at the end of the third period for best player, best line and best sportsmanship. There is even different time for an improvisation ranging from 30 seconds upto 10 minutes.

The referee calls the improvisation in the middle of the stage. It might go like this. Mixte improvisation with the title: "Love at first sight". Time 2 minutes. Maximum of one player per team. Both twam now have 20 seconds to debate who should go and maybe a direction to take the improvisation. A team is made of four players and one captain.

I can even translate the game rules if needed, as I used to be a referee at this game.

So all this to say that improvisation is possible at various degrees. One form is no less interesting than the other and has as much merits as any other.

Again, you're confusing ad hoc with improv. Improv is not just "make stuff up." If that were sufficient for improv, then we all already do it to a pretty good degree. Your opening question isn't something that makes me say "oh, yeah, that's improv" because it's present in every RPG game there is -- players having the choice to try something with their characters. This is the fundamental level of agency in RPGs -- it must be present. Citing it as "improv" rather than "what must be present for an RPG" is odd, especially in a thread that's concept is to encourage improv in games -- why encourage something we're defining as always present?!

No, ad hoc, random, and procedures are not improv. Improv is where every player is building and not blocking in play. These block. That's not a bad thing, mind -- blocking is a very useful tool in a lot of RPGs. In D&D, it's essential for the GM to be able to block to enable the approach that D&D is built upon. But blocking is antithetical to improv. There are other games that do not block. Those typically are games that do a better job of supporting and encouraging improv. To do improv in D&D is hard, mostly because the system is so dense that some preparation is required and that prep is often rather specific (these monsters, that trap, this map, etc). If play heads in an unepected direction that could use that kind of prep but it wasn't done, there are no tools in the D&D toolbox to bridge this.

 

[Helldritch]

Again, you're confusing ad hoc with improv. Improv is not just "make stuff up." If that were sufficient for improv, then we all already do it to a pretty good degree. Your opening question isn't something that makes me say "oh, yeah, that's improv" because it's present in every RPG game there is -- players having the choice to try something with their characters. This is the fundamental level of agency in RPGs -- it must be present. Citing it as "improv" rather than "what must be present for an RPG" is odd, especially in a thread that's concept is to encourage improv in games -- why encourage something we're defining as always present?! No, ad hoc, random, and procedures are not improv. Improv is where every player is building and not blocking in play. These block. That's not a bad thing, mind -- blocking is a very useful tool in a lot of RPGs. In D&D, it's essential for the GM to be able to block to enable the approach that D&D is built upon. But blocking is antithetical to improv. There are other games that do not block. Those typically are games that do a better job of supporting and encouraging improv.

And you get it wrong.
Improvisation can be free form, as you claim.
Or can follow parameters.
In a D&D context, improvisation always follow some parameters. Otherwise, you do not play D&D, you improvise.
When Robert Downey Jr improvise on a set and that impro is better than what was originally written, it is not free form improvisation but an improvisation which follow parameters such as a movie scenario, known character's behavior, history of the previous movies and so on. Robert is given parameters and he improvise on these. Sometimes there a flashes of genius, sometimes, it is not even taken into consideration. But he follows parameters. And within these parameters, almost anything can be possible. But Tony Stark would not all of a sudden be able to do magic out of nowhere. A non parameterized improvisation would allow exactly that.

To do improv in D&D is hard, mostly because the system is so dense that some preparation is required and that prep is often rather specific (these monsters, that trap, this map, etc). If play heads in an unepected direction that could use that kind of prep but it wasn't done, there are no tools in the D&D toolbox to bridge this.

Not at all. It is quite easy but requires a few things.
1) An extensive knowledge of monsters.
Flipping through the pages is bad. Right of the bat, I can play any monsters in the MM and be almost perfectly right. Memorization of the stats with a small margin for errors is more than enough. So far, I have read the MM about 20 times. (but I am a fast reader, I know not everyone has this advantage..)
2) An extensive knowledge of the rules.
Again, flipping pages is bad for improvisation. You need to know most rules. This one is simple enough to understand.
3) Know your players and their characters.
This one is not easy, the more players you have, the less it becomes possible. At 12 players, my memory can have some lapses but usually, I can easily play each character of every single players with ease. I sometimes, even remind them some of their equipment that they are forgetting. With that knowledge, you do not need to flip through pages of notes, you can easily stir the improvised events in the direction you want. This allows for complete improvisation on the adventure.

Even If I said the random dungeons and encounter table can be used. I do not always do so. I know my players and their tastes. I know what will "work" and what will not with them. One fact is to be considered though. When you have an open game with random players, this can't be done with any efficiency or consistency. An AL type game needs more restrain than a personal games with friends. It maybe why you say that improvisation is hard in D&D. When faced with random players, you simply can not do that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And you get it wrong.
Improvisation can be free form, as you claim.
Or can follow parameters.
In a D&D context, improvisation always follow some parameters. Otherwise, you do not play D&D, you improvise.
When Robert Downey Jr improvise on a set and that impro is better than what was originally written, it is not free form improvisation but an improvisation which follow parameters such as a movie scenario, known character's behavior, history of the previous movies and so on. Robert is given parameters and he improvise on these. Sometimes there a flashes of genius, sometimes, it is not even taken into consideration. But he follows parameters. And within these parameters, almost anything can be possible. But Tony Stark would not all of a sudden be able to do magic out of nowhere. A non parameterized improvisation would allow exactly that.


Not at all. It is quite easy but requires a few things.
1) An extensive knowledge of monsters.
Flipping through the pages is bad. Right of the bat, I can play any monsters in the MM and be almost perfectly right. Memorization of the stats with a small margin for errors is more than enough. So far, I have read the MM about 20 times. (but I am a fast reader, I know not everyone has this advantage..)
2) An extensive knowledge of the rules.
Again, flipping pages is bad for improvisation. You need to know most rules. This one is simple enough to understand.
3) Know your players and their characters.
This one is not easy, the more players you have, the less it becomes possible. At 12 players, my memory can have some lapses but usually, I can easily play each character of every single players with ease. I sometimes, even remind them some of their equipment that they are forgetting. With that knowledge, you do not need to flip through pages of notes, you can easily stir the improvised events in the direction you want. This allows for complete improvisation on the adventure.

Even If I said the random dungeons and encounter table can be used. I do not always do so. I know my players and their tastes. I know what will "work" and what will not with them. One fact is to be considered though. When you have an open game with random players, this can't be done with any efficiency or consistency. An AL type game needs more restrain than a personal games with friends. It maybe why you say that improvisation is hard in D&D. When faced with random players, you simply can not do that.

Right, this is exactly what I was saying in that you're just using improv as shorthand for making things up. That use, though, makes no sense in the context of the thread, because we're already making things up when we play RPGs -- it's about pretending! So, yeah, this use doesn't advance anything at all.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But you seem to think you are "non-privileged", whilst other posters are "privileged". On a broadly anonymous internet forum It's hard to see how you (or the people you think are punching you) are establishing that.

Punching down on people I know. I can hang with Improv, but I run games for people who can't and who wouldn't play at all if they were being pressured into playacting their actions instead of leveraging mechanics. They're anxious or self-conscious about doing such things. It makes them uncomfortable and explaining that the mechanics are there so their character can do things they can't helps them enjoy the game.

 

[Helldritch]

Right, this is exactly what I was saying in that you're just using improv as shorthand for making things up. That use, though, makes no sense in the context of the thread, because we're already making things up when we play RPGs -- it's about pretending! So, yeah, this use doesn't advance anything at all.

So for you, improvising within parameters is not improvisation?
Nothing can be further from the truth.
As soon as you improvise in a game, any game system, you already have some parameters, the game system. Whether you play Vampire, Palladium, Role Master, Black Eye, Cthulhu, Pace (no dice), Theatrix (no dice) or any games that will come to mind means that you already have parameters!
So by your own claims, you never have improvised in your games. Ever...

 

[Oofta]

The DM was the judge who awarded points. Some of it was straightforward (damage dealt, damage taken, loot, etc), but all arbitrary awards were solely the DM's call. In theory they were supposed to be impartial, but I've heard quite a few stories of the early Gen Con games having significant bias towards people in Gygax's home game. However, most of the RP stuff was specifically listed, rather than left open. To use your example, it wouldn't just say "he's young," but something along the lines of "due to his youth, he often makes rash decisions," which are much easier to note.

Long, long ago in public D&D games people used to vote for "best roleplayer". It really came down to who was the most charismatic or who the DM happened to like. Cute females always won because the tables were largely dominated by guys. There was one DM where it was obvious from the first time I met him before I even opened my mouth that he really, really didn't care for me for some unknown reason.

So that's why I don't care for rewarding or judging people based on their performance, there will always be a bias.

 

[Oofta]

I beg to differ. Some of my best games were totally and completely improvised. D&D can support it. The more the DM knows his books be it MM, PHB and DMG the more he can improvise without going overboard. The trick is to find a real balance between the randomness of improvisation and the mitigation of weird results you might get from the tables.

Most of my DMing is heavily improvised. I know a general who's who, factions and motivations. I'll potentially go into detail for some aspects depending on the situation. I figure out appropriate NPCs and monsters that the group could come into conflict with and I usually have 2-3 more than I expect them to encounter so I can grab the appropriate one. Most of my game? Ad-libbed based on the above. It's one of the reasons I dislike VTT's so much, because I have to have planned set encounters.

I'm not sure I care whether that qualifies as "improv" or not.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Punching down on people I know. I can hang with Improv, but I run games for people who can't and who wouldn't play at all if they were being pressured into playacting their actions instead of leveraging mechanics. They're anxious or self-conscious about doing such things. It makes them uncomfortable and explaining that the mechanics are there so their character can do things they can't helps them enjoy the game.

No one is talking about pressurising people into doing it, and taking lessons is a good way to deal with anxiety issues. And you still haven't answered, what makes you think the people posting on this forum are "privileged"?