IRC Investigates: The Improv Concept of Game

[benorbeen]

There are already plenty of discussions already on these boards as to the meaning of the word "game" in improv contexts (specifically UCBT contexts). This is not really one of those discussions.

Instead, it's an investigation, something I stumbled upon recently.

Recently, I decided to teach tagouts in improv class, and suddenly the word "game" seemed quite meaningful and useful. I have to admit that outside of the tagout context, the term and concept has seemed nothing more than confusing.

The lesson started off as something like this:

1. In an improv scene, from the backline you can tag out a person in the frontline.
2. For now we want to focus on heightening an element of the scene when we come in upon a tagout.

With that taught, I realized that what the backline people wanted to look for was some choice a player/character was making, and then come in, tag out that person, then heighten that choice.

A game is merely a choice presumed to be part of a pattern.

A homeless woman wants to buy a Big Mac, and the McDonald's employee puts up resistance? TAGOUT THE EMPLOYEE. ENTER AS A BMW SALESMAN. The BMW salesman puts up resistance to her wanting to buy an M6 Convertible. You've found a game. You've presumed a pattern behind the first choice.

Larry the Plumber's buttcrack makes a woman scream at her apartment? TAGOUT THE WOMAN. ENTER SEVERAL TEENAGE GIRLS. The teenage girls scream at the buttcrack Beetlemaniastyle. TAGOUT THE TEENAGE GIRLS. ENTER SEVERAL INMATES. The inmates scream at the buttcrack Beetlemaniastayle. You've found a game. You've presumed a pattern behind the first choice.

By presuming some kind of pattern behind a choice, you have fun. Most of the time you're simply heightening the choice. That is, you're making MORE of it. You take a choice, speculate it as part of a greater pattern, then give us a snippet of the greater pattern. That is, Dr. Jiggles doesn't simply make one wrong organ transplant ... instead, he makes many horribly wrong organ transplants, many times worse than this first one! We have fun showing that.

THE LIMITS OF GAME

All improv scenes aren't about finding a game, when the word "game" is taken to mean the above. There is so much more to an improv scene than simply interrupting a scene to show a choice as part of a pattern. Surely as a technique, the tagout has comedic power. But as a technique, it can also interfere with the depth of connection the players achieve with their characters in their respective scenes.

For example, it would be hard to get two players moved to honest tears in a scene between their characters if the scene is forwarded by tagouts from the backline. The tagouts would interrupt the emotional progression for most players. Even if the run (a series of tagouts) circled back to the original characters, the players would in most cases not be as emotionally honest and as authentically open had they been let to go without tagouts. (I'm speaking in general here, for I'm sure there are actors/improvisers who can emotionally turn on a dime like that.)

Finding a game, as in heightening a choice presumed to be part of a pattern, in general creates shallow scenes. It doesn't have to be this way, but it tends to. Instead of digging deeper into the complexities of a character, when a tagout is employed a simple choice is stunted, extracted, magnified, magnified again, magnified again, until audience laughter and editation. The players think they have improv, do improv, and do great improv at that. But if their improv were seen by an audience thinking this was scripted theater, the audience would not be seeing a play ... they'd be seeing truncated scenes--probably entertaining, but going nowhere important. Shallow scenes. No depth.

In the end, it all tastes like syrup. Sugar, but no meat. Really big laughs! But the audience isn't changed or moved. For the one-time audience member, candy is great! For the regular audience member, give me steak. And if steak is great, why not give it to the one-time audience member as well.

SOME HISTORY & A QUESTION

The inspiration for this above? The chapter on the tagout performance piece from Charna's Art by Committee.

The tagout game almost seemed to sum up the UCBT philosophy (to an extent). I took class back in 2000-2001. Looking back, "It was all about the tagout." Surely the philosophy has been bolstered since then. And that is my question for discussion:

Does the above about the word "game" jive with you, given what you're currently learning at UCBT? Is "game" "all about the tagout"?

It was quite a nice connection I experienced. I felt as if I'd accidentally ended up back in first grade to do an exercise I'd forgotten whose lesson I'd forgotten, too.

Ben

[Curjay]

I teach level 201's at the UCBT.

The class is intended to introduce students to game, to understand it, to employ it.

Tag-outs are taught as one tool by which you may augment a scene, or add to the already established game of the scene. We spend about 15 minutes of one class day discussing the technique.

I discourage the overuse and/or abuse of the tag out, walk on and other potentially disruptive moves.

So...no. It's not "all about the tag-out."

What people decide to do in their performances may be another story.

[MikeStill]

I took the bulk of my classes way, way back in 2006, so it was a different time (people were more free sexually, for example), but it sounds like you are describing an exercise (the "everyone tag in as soon as the game appears and heighten hard" one) verses a way to play in front of an audience.

If memory serves correct, there wasn't much emphasis on tagouts in class. In fact, we were asked to avoid backline meddling, especially in the pre-harold classes. It was more about finding game than long-form hot doggery.

Even in the later classes heightening through tagouts was never a focus and when occur it was usually in the context of a group game (or maybe in third beats, where a tagout serves more to connect and combining games).

I've probably heard every single instructor I've ever had say to someone, "Why did you walk-on/tagout there? Don't do that unless you are really adding to the game of the scene."

Concerning 2006, people really were more open with their bodies, willing to explore, experience new feelings--what happened to this city?

[Dyna Moe]

The biggest problem I've seen with students/performers who approach game this way is... it gets boring fast. There's no timing, no discovery, no tension.

Analogous situations repeated at higher and higher volume is a valid way to play a game. Appropriate for a 3 minute one-scene set or a group game in a Harold, but if it's the only way you approach game, you're selling yourself, your game and your audience short.

"Games" aren't funny; how you play them is. Tagouts are hammers; a well-played game is approached with teeny-tiny eyeglass-fixing screwdriver sets.

[benzado]

Originally Posted by MikeStill

Concerning 2006, people really were more open with their bodies, willing to explore, experience new feelings--what happened to this city?

Everybody got real cautious after Holmes died of AIDS.

[Sry An]

Yeah, I agree with Mike, I moved to the city in late '05 and was here for the 2006 sexual explosion. It was great. Very liberating. But by the time I started taking classes at UCB, in 2007, the movement seemed to have died out overnight. The old ways weren't acceptable anymore. I had to completely adjust my style, and came close to being kicked out of class on several occasions.

[Antny]

It is a dark part of the UCBT history that none of us like to talk about very often. But in 2000-2001, a number of classes were taught by Larry The Plumber's Buttcrack Tagout Jones (his friends called him "Tagout").

For Tagout - it was "all about the tagout."

I sometimes worry about all the improv students Tagout destroyed during that year, not only forcing students to constantly tag each other out, but teaching them to use tagouts to heighten ridiculously boring and hacky ideas rather than using them, as they were intended, to explore interesting ideas/characters/relationships and support the choices of our teammates on stage at the top of our intelligence.

The problem, of course, is not only that his students don't understand what game is or how to use it, but that they tend to disparage the whole enterprise despite their ignorance.

Luckily, Tagout Jones is dead. He died of a broken fart.

[trinity4r1]

At UCB the tag out is one technique encouraged to be used sparingly, like sugars and fats on the old food pyramid. Too much use of the tag out would give you some comedic energy but it couldn't sustain you over the long scene like protein does.

The tag out is carbs. Dr. Atkins recommends not consuming a lot of carbs.

[HairballofDoom]

All about tag outs? Doubtful. It looks like you had your peoples exploring patterns, yes? There are tons of ways to explore patterns (tag outs being one way) and, to my understanding, that's a big thing with "playing the game" of a scene.

I like to loosely think of Game as the spirit of the scene/piece. It's there, and it comes out best when you just let it happen, and when it comes out, ride it like you were surfing. And other such analogies, similes and pettiefours.

But then I haven't taken classes at the UCB, so I really don't play into this conversation, do I? Sigh. UCB centric threads. I gots no business messin' wich'ya'll.

[benorbeen]

Hi all!

I haven't gotten a chance to read over all the replies, but after reading Curtis's reply, I realized how I phrased something ("It's all about the tagout") didn't really communicate what I meant, and I had best rephrase and clarify.

Like several of you, I also didn't get much training in tagouts in UCBT classes. Honestly, I don't remember a single lesson per se in them, maybe only touching on them when covering La Rondes and the like.

What I meant more to say was that the tagout exercise (along the lines of what I clarified above), as well as the tagout performance piece from Charna's book, seemed to me to crystalize the meaning of the word "game" in the UCBT context. Generalizing from there, the concept of game seemed to make more sense to me: "A game is merely a choice presumed to be part of a pattern."

Now, in my own world of improv, I tend to define the word "game" differently than that, and there are several other meanings of the word "game" that float around in the improv world as well.

I want to look back at what look like great responses to the opening of the discussion. I'll be back later today. Thank you for your replies so far!

Cheers,
Ben

[Antny]

Monopoly is a game.

We use the pattern of moving pieces around the board to play that game.

That pattern in and of itself is not very interesting.

But the pattern serves the game. It moves it forward. It lets us find more fun.

The fun is in what we DO in that game. It's WHY we're playing it.

You can play it fast. Or slow. You can spend time in jail. Or you can work as hard as you can to buy up all the railroads.

That's your choice.

Because monopoly is a game.

Game is what we play.

If something is funny, it has a game.

Pattern is how we play it.

We use patterns to explore and heighten the game.

Choice is up to the individual player.

At UCBT we teach people to make strong choices at the top of their intelligence and then to commit to those choices.

Strong, committed choices show off your sense of play and sense of humor. They bring your ideas to the group mind.

Then everyone gets to play and enjoy and support each others ideas.

You can make a pattern out of anything. But if it's not a pattern serving a strong game - it'll be boring.

Just like Sorry.

That's a terrible game.

[Fred Garvin]

i like the samoas best

[ThePhilWells]

I think "a choice presumed to be part of a pattern" is a great way to describe a game move. When I think of a show that could be described as "game-y" it's because the players were really good at finding, iterating, and heightening patterns. Nothing wrong with that.

[benorbeen]

From my experience, the word "game" in improv contexts means one of about three different things:

1. The name of a game, meaning the name of an understood/codified kind of behavior. For example, Antny's Monopoly or Sorry! examples. Also chess, checkers, and card games. Also Red Light Green Light and other kids' and party games. Also Tic Tac Toe. Also gameshows like Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! Also improv games. Zip Zap Zop. Party Quirks. Etc. The Harold can be seen as a game. Roughly, the game is its overall name, sometimes seen merely as its respective rules or regulations.

2. A choice, esp. when repeated by a player. If a player's character is drawn to women's hair in a scene, and this player keeps having his character drawn to hair (or if the character keeps getting drawn to others' hair), that's a choice the player is repeating--that's his game. In some sense, this meaning is very similar to 1., but 1. refers a bit more to the names than to the behavior/choices. Compare "I'm playing Pattycake" (1.) with "I'm playing Pattycake" (2.). Roughly, the game is what a character is repeatedly doing.

3. A conflict. I believe this definition is drawn from game theory, where games (as in 1.) were correlated with real-life situations, specifically real-life conflicts. Conflicts thus were seen as "games." The terminology is quiet helpful from an analytical point of view; you can analyze improv scenes' conflict and complexity into 1-player, 2-player, 3-player, n-player games, etc., and note the challenges of n-player games and 1-player games compared to, say, 2-player games. However, apart from game theory, Del Close at least at one point was not fond of equating the improv meaning of "game" with conflict in improv. There's a published interview to this point--I forget the title, something maybe that had "Mad Genius" in the title. Roughly, the game is the "John vs. Jane" of the improv scene.

I suppose a 4th definition I've heard along the way (unless I just extrapolated it from 3.) was that the game was the relationship of the scene. This definition, however, seems like a very general definition and could be fleshed out more specifically as either 1., 2., or 3.

I remember in my first classes hearing more subjective definitions of the word "game." Things like "It's what's interesting in a scene" or "It's what's funny in the scene." The problem with those definitions is that either finding game becomes relative (what's interesting/funny to you may not be interesting/funny to me), or finding game inspires codependency (the teacher ultimately determines whether there was something interesting/funny in the scene). Either way, you can never know you found game because you're dependent on others to say whether you'd found it. I prefer a more absolute definition, so insofar as finding game is important, an improviser knows without question whether she's found it or not.

I've also heard "It's the pattern of the scene." That was probably the best definition for the term "game" I heard at the time, but one that I didn't like because I kept getting images of my old hideous orange plaid lumberjack shirt. That is, I got images of fabric patterns--but having characters in fabric patterns did not a game find.

In light of my first post in this thread, this latter definition makes a bit more sense to me. But it seems to me it's the pattern of a choice. A choice gets repeated, and that becomes what we call "your game." Tagout runs along the lines of the Tagout Performance Piece can underscore the concept.

I really appreciate the thoughtful replies. Thanks.

Ben

[benjamincanfly]

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian denomination which holds to a "pattern theology," so this topic holds special interest for me. One of the reasons I eventually left the religion is that it holds to patterns in a very empty way. Doctrines, traditions and liturgical phrases have been passed down for many generations, but they don't mean anything, because they're the wrong parts of the patterns, following the superficial form of things instead of the deeper content/character.

Whenever I play the "categories" warm-up exercise, I watch intently to see what the second person in each series says, because it is largely his burden/privilege to decide on the depth and character of the pattern. I love this moment! Does everyone else feel the same way? I haven't asked before.

So if the first person says Chevrolet, the second person could say Toyota, Schwinn, baguettes, or Marlboro, and then the apparent pattern would be car companies, brands of transportation, French things, or things associated with American masculinity. Of these, Toyota is the easiest and least interesting choice. For someone to say Marlboro instead he's going to have all three eyes open, or however you want to phrase it. It's a simple and forgettable pleasure to hear "Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford," and I know that as an improv audience member I would much rather see something that challenges or surprises me somehow.

The next digits in the pattern "1, 2, 4" could be "5, 7, 8," or "8, 16, 32," or "7, 11, 16," or just "1, 2, 4" again. The farther you get into a pattern the harder it is to discover a move which simultaneously supports and illuminates/recontextualizes the preceding moves, but the more fun it is when it happens. Not that that's the goal.

Anyhow, my only point is that there are many types and depths of patterns.

Nice.

[Rosie]

Less talk more rock...

[lefty]

Hey Benjamin,

I know what you mean about watching the second person in that warm up. I especially am watchful when I start it and throw a word that can very easily (as in more easily than other more single meaning words) go multiple ways. Like I threw "Stereolab" thinking the band to someone and got a pattern of technology sounding things; "Lush" got textures instead the limitless list of British "Shoegazer" bands with hot lead singers.

Hey Hairball of Doom, I don't think this is a UCB-centric thread, or meant to be one. But, clearly "game" is going to get the attention of UCB people. Blood in the water isn't about sharks, but they're going to swing by and check it out.

[CoreyBrown]

I miss Tagout Jones

I loved his motto the most - "You can be in every scene."

[Curjay]

Originally Posted by lefty

I don't think this is a UCB-centric thread, or meant to be one. But, clearly "game" is going to get the attention of UCB people. Blood in the water isn't about sharks, but they're going to swing by and check it out.

Lefty...

Reread Benorbeen's post.

It specifically references the UCBT and says:

"The tagout game almost seemed to sum up the UCBT philosophy (to an extent). I took class back in 2000-2001. Looking back, "It was all about the tagout." Surely the philosophy has been bolstered since then. And that is my question for discussion:

Does the above about the word "game" jive with you, given what you're currently learning at UCBT? Is "game" "all about the tagout"?

The question of game is a broader question but, I'm not sure how you can read that and say to yourself, "Hmm, this isn't really UCBT centric."

It has nothing to do with blood being in the water. It seemed like a question I and other UCBT students/staff were qualified to respond to.

[lefty]

Hey Curjay

I agree he does use his experience at the UCB in relating his recent teaching of Tag outs to define game above. He also states "There are already plenty of discussions already on these boards as to the meaning of the word "game" in improv contexts (specifically UCBT contexts). This is not really one of those discussions." That which you quoted from my post wasn't about Ben's use of the word, but more to say to Hairball of Doom that he and others should feel free to share their view of the word.

I think the word embodies multiple overlaping concepts. I've read here fundamental disagreements over what a game is and isn't, by people way more qualified than I. I hope you didn't find the shark and blood reference offensive. I agree with you, that people teaching UCB 201 are uniquely qualified to address this issue. I simply was saying to Hairball of Doom, who apparently not a UCB student, that he shouldn't feel excluded (as far as I'm concerned he out-ranks me), even though at the mention of Game UCB people are bound to weigh in. That weighing in, in this thread, I see as being part of a bigger communitity not neccessarily "authoritative"-- by neccessity since not everyone is a UCB student nor subscribes to (or gets) the UCB philosophy.

As for how I was taught game at UCB, I think Ben at best grossly oversimplifies game at UCB. But I'm willing to put the accent on when he took the class and how time clouds our memory. I don't think it invalidates his perspective or what he's sharing, even though it plays to unfair stereotypes of what is going on at the UCB. I was lucky enough to take 201 with your teammate Neil Casey, but the concepts are taught consistently so that everyone in my 301 & 401 and everyone I've practiced with had no confusion when talking about "game".

I think the UCB is unfairly accused of using "game" as if it is in avoidance of character based stuff. I do think like a quarterback that can scramble effectively, some people bail out on deeper stuff once they see an easy game. I think it was Ian Roberts that I'm mis-paraphrasing, saying simply that game is what makes it comedy. I find game in the forth movement of Haydn's Opus 33 no 2 (called "The Musical Joke"), where he takes the theme (pattern) and twists and tweaks it endlessly (the joke being the ending of piece, but game could be applied to the way he composed that and viturally every other bit of music he wrote). In fact all music since Haydn including free jazz of Ornette Coleman and Albert Ayler essentially is made the way way game is played in improv.

Along those lines, tag out should be a clear example of game, and thus his initial post is right on in that sense. In a tag-out group game two people play, once you (or anyone) sees a game move worth hitting you tag out a player and play your heightend version of the game. For the sake of continuity that ought to be the game of that group game. It is just the repeatable pattern that is made more humorous through heightend repeatition.

I could waffle further and be more wishy-washy if needed.