Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[Scott Christian]

Maybe not to everyone?

I honestly don't believe that. People can see both sides, it's just that some lean on one side or the other a bit more. That is one of the reasons forums get filled with discussions like these, people are trying to find the line of demarcation. Sometimes they are trying to convince others where it's at, and other times, they are trying to have a conversation to figure out where theirs is at.

 

[Laurefindel]

Isn't it obvious to everyone that a GM shares things in common with a director and author, but is also neither of those things?

While I agree with the essence of your statement, I don’t think it’s obvious to everyone. Mostly because being a GM does not mean the same to everyone, and because the profession and the responsibilities of a director are misunderstood by many.

A director and a GM differ mainly and principally in the fact that a GM is not responsible for guiding the acting of their players, though you could say that a GM should guide their players in a more general sense.

Other that that, the tasks of a GM are remarkably close to those of a director given the difference in media, enough for me to say that a GM is to RPG what a director is to a movie.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I've been mulling the proposal that RPG's biggest differences from other story-telling media is that there is no editing and authorship responsibilities are distributed among contributors

I think it’s the combination of shared authorship and rules that differentiate it. In most games there is a GameMaster who has the final responsibility of deciding what becomes part of the shared fiction — that feels like an editorial role to me.

An improv acting session is not an RPG, despite no editing and shared authorship, so I think we need more than just this statement. If we pretend to be gunfighters in the old west and as a group decide if “I shot you so you’re dead” is true, we are playing Let’s Pretend — roleplaying, but not playing a game in the sense we usually use in the term “roleplaying game”. As soon as we make a rule to decide if an outcome is true, it becomes an RPG.

Exploring the difference between a comedy troupe doing a 30 minute sketch, and the same people playing Fiasco would be a reasonable way to hone a definition of RPG

 

[Piperken]

...An improv acting session is not an RPG, despite no editing and shared authorship, so I think we need more than just this statement. If we pretend to be gunfighters in the old west and as a group decide if “I shot you so you’re dead” is true, we are playing Let’s Pretend — roleplaying, but not playing a game in the sense we usually use in the term “roleplaying game”. As soon as we make a rule to decide if an outcome is true, it becomes an RPG.

Exploring the difference between a comedy troupe doing a 30 minute sketch, and the same people playing Fiasco would be a reasonable way to hone a definition of RPG

LARP troupes have entered the chat.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it’s the combination of shared authorship and rules that differentiate it. In most games there is a GameMaster who has the final responsibility of deciding what becomes part of the shared fiction — that feels like an editorial role to me.

An improv acting session is not an RPG, despite no editing and shared authorship, so I think we need more than just this statement. If we pretend to be gunfighters in the old west and as a group decide if “I shot you so you’re dead” is true, we are playing Let’s Pretend — roleplaying, but not playing a game in the sense we usually use in the term “roleplaying game”. As soon as we make a rule to decide if an outcome is true, it becomes an RPG.

Exploring the difference between a comedy troupe doing a 30 minute sketch, and the same people playing Fiasco would be a reasonable way to hone a definition of RPG

And here is where I disagree. Improv scenes in my opinion are absolutely "games". They have rules to follow. They have a "winning condition" so to speak. They even have a randomizer element-- no, it's not dice like a typical RPG, but the randomizer for one performer is the response of another performer. One performer might start a scene and say "Looks like old grandad has passed on..." and instead of then somebody rolling some dice on a chart to determine whether this statement is true and what the results of this statement are, the other performer instead just makes their own choice and throws it at the first performer. From the first performer's perspective they received a randomized result to their action and they have to accept this "randomized" answer given to them and move forward with it.

Too many people seem to think that the only way you can have a "game" is via some outside, randomized element that changes what is going on (like dice). But there are plenty of games for which no randomization is necessary-- take Diplomacy for example. No randomization element at all-- it's all based on the negotiation (IE "roleplaying") of the players at the table and the orders they submit. Diplomacy is a game. Indeed, as much of a "roleplaying game" as any other-- each player is taking on the role of a leader of one of seven nations trying to vie for the control of Europe. It just doesn't have the elements of most RPGs that we all come to think of as being "important" (or for some people, even "required")-- like dice, or leveling or a Game Master.

To me... I don't see a true difference between a comedy troupe doing a 30 minute sketch and the same people playing Fiasco... where one is considered a "game" and the other isn't. Fiasco has a "rulebook" to read, sure... but that rulebook merely is telling the players the format for their improv. But give the improv troupe the rulebook on how to perform The Harold (a very specific, rules-heavy improv performance format) rather than just teaching it to them and you'd be hard pressed to see a difference between the two beyond the specifics of each format.

 

[Umbran]

An improv acting session is not an RPG, despite no editing and shared authorship, so I think we need more than just this statement. If we pretend to be gunfighters in the old west and as a group decide if “I shot you so you’re dead” is true, we are playing Let’s Pretend — roleplaying, but not playing a game in the sense we usually use in the term “roleplaying game”. As soon as we make a rule to decide if an outcome is true, it becomes an RPG.

So you are aware... improv has rules.

People doing improv don't use dice to resolve actions, but Improv isn't "anything goes," kids playing cops-and-robbers either. Improv actors have guiding structures by which they operate, so that the result is coherent.

If there's an argument that improv isn't an RPG, it is in the fact that, usually, the actors actually do know the general plot of their scenario before they step onto the stage. They are improvising the details, but not the large-scale plot.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

So you are aware... improv has rules.

People doing improv don't use dice to resolve actions, but Improv isn't "anything goes," kids playing cops-and-robbers either. Improv actors have guiding structures by which they operate, so that the result is coherent.

If there's an argument that improv isn't an RPG, it is in the fact that, usually, the actors actually do know the general plot of their scenario before they step onto the stage. They are improvising the details, but not the large-scale plot.

In a sense, everything has rules, and yes, you can look up improv rules and find a list that looks like this:

1) Say “yes’and!”
2) Add new information.
3) Don’t block.
4) Avoid asking questions- unless you’re also adding information.
5) Play in the present and use the moment.
6) Establish the location.
7) Be specific and provide colorful details.
8) Change, Change, Change!
9) For serious and emotional scenes, focus on characters and relationships.
10) For humorous scenes, take choices to the nth degree or focus on actions/objects.

But there's a pretty big difference between "Rules" in an RPG and "improv rules" -- or Chess rules, at the other end of the scale.

Chess has strong rules. If you break a rule, you are no longer playing chess. If you are playing chess and decide to move your bishop horizontally, the game will stop and not continue.

RPGs have medium rules -- they are rarely broken and if they are, it's often because a new rule supersedes an old one. If I want to go before an orc in initiative, I'd usually have to have a rule-based reason to do so. "Rule Zero" allows a GM to arbitrarily ignore rules, but even so, they rarely do so per se, it's almost always because of a rule that is hidden from the players' view.

Improv has soft rules. If I don't "establish the location" or I block, it doesn't stop the improv -- people don't suddenly jump into a rules discussion like they would if you declared you were going before the orc. It just makes the event weaker and makes you look bad. It's advice or guidance, not rules. You could ignore all the listed "rules" and still be doing improv. You couldn't ignore all the rules in D&D and still say you were playing D&D.

For me, that's not equivalent to an RPG rules - Improv "rules" are more like a social contract. In fact, you could take most of the above improv advice and it would make a good social contract. So I'm not in agreement that you can compare the two.

As a minor detail, I have also seen a fair amount of improv where the actors have no idea of the general plot and do make up the entire story on the fly. Dropout has a whole series of musicals that are improv, and the cast create plots, characters, resolutions, locations, you name it.

 

[Laurefindel]

Improv has soft rules. If I don't "establish the location" or I block, it doesn't stop the improv -- people don't suddenly jump into a rules discussion like they would if you declared you were going before the orc. It just makes the event weaker and makes you look bad. It's advice or guidance, not rules. You could ignore all the listed "rules" and still be doing improv. You couldn't ignore all the rules in D&D and still say you were playing D&D.

For me, that's not equivalent to an RPG rules - Improv "rules" are more like a social contract. In fact, you could take most of the above improv advice and it would make a good social contract. So I'm not in agreement that you can compare the two.

As a minor detail, I have also seen a fair amount of improv where the actors have no idea of the general plot and do make up the entire story on the fly. Dropout has a whole series of musicals that are improv, and the cast create plots, characters, resolutions, locations, you name it.

Improv has a few hard rules such as number of players allowed, a set amount of time, whether the teams mingle or play one after another, which theme(s) and/or genre(s) are imposed, etc. Break any of those and you're disqualified. In addition, players get various penalties for a number of behaviours (I only know of these terms in French). Improv games are actually quite structured and while they are not rehearsed, teams are well-prepared.

Hum, I'm not sure where I'm going with this actually. I find improv to be similar to the player part or RPG (as in playing a PC) to some degrees, except you have 30 seconds to come up with a character and its personality, and your whole campaign lasts 2 minutes.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Improv scenes in my opinion are absolutely "games". They have rules to follow. They have a "winning condition" so to speak.

I don't actually think games need a winner, so I'm happy to ignore that part (I really don't think RPGs or improv scenes can be "won"). But let's think about a rule.

For improv, I'm guessing you're thinking of things like "don't block" in terms of rules. And indeed, if you look up the definition of "rules" in a dictionary, you might find a definition that says that it's anything that defines conduct. We talk about the "rules of love" or "rule of cool" or a host of other ways that fit that definition. So I'll concede that you can say "improv has rules" in the same sense as you could say "how to blow your nose has rules" -- there are a set of expected ways to do this which form a social expectation and make the experience a better one for all.

But if we are talking about a game, people generally use rules in a stronger sense. We don't think of how pawns move in chess as simply an expectation that people usually do this and will make things more fun for all. It's a much stronger statement. In the context of games, a rule typically:

• Is explicit -- usually written down.
• Has an authority that has defined it.
• Has penalties for not being followed.

If you are playing D&D, you have written rules, defined by the game company (or your GM's wiki of house rules) and if you don't follow them you will be corrected or ejected from the game. This feels very different from, for example, GM advice to "be a fan of the players" or for players not to block while roleplaying. Not less important -- but different.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Improv has a few hard rules such as number of players allowed, a set amount of time, whether the teams mingle or play one after another, which theme(s) and/or genre(s) are imposed, etc. Break any of those and you're disqualified. In addition, players get various penalties for a number of behaviours (I only know of these terms in French). Improv games are actually quite structured and while they are not rehearsed, teams are well-prepared.

I emphasized part of your post as I think this exactly captures how I feel. Improv does not have rules (only guidelines as to how to do it well) -- but when you impose rules, like the ones you indicate, it becomes not only improv, but also a game!

I think the others in this thread are thinking of non-game improv situations. Like acting classes or comedy shows.