5's in Maestro

[kbadr]

(not sure where this should go, so I put it here)

This weekend's Maestro, although really fun and high in quality, had way too many 5's. The audience was just being generous.

One suggestion during notes was for the directors to remind the audience that a 2 is average. But then Andy mentioned that a lot of players complain when he does that right before scoring. I understand both points of view, and I think I figured out a solution.

As soon as the audience seems to be scoring too high, the director can say something like "Yeah, that was good, but these guys can do MUCH better. Remember, 2 is an average score, and they should make you see God to earn that 5." The key is to do this right *after* the audience scores, rather than doing it right after the scene. That way it seems like the director is reminding the audience what their scoring should be like, rather than conveying "boy that scene wasn't so good...ok, let's score it!"

Just a thought.

[Evilpandabear]

oh kareem. i forgot to tell you that i played as you the last two maestros i've done, and both times i was i the final cut before the final 2. so good job mate! and thanks for letting me share some of the awesome for a change.

[Dave]

I don't think underselling performances does us, the audience, or improv, in general, any good.

I am of the camp, that as director, my job is to get everybody 5's

I want to pick games that will highlight the improvisors on stage and ones that the audience will love.

I want to sell the hell out of each performed game afterwards and get them a 5, if I can.

I think the audience wants to be happy with what they've seen and if I walked out of a show having thought of everything I had seen as only 40% of greatness. I would never go back to see that show.

my two cents.

[kbadr]

I mostly agree, Dave (especially with the phrase "as director, my job..."--you should come direct Maestro!)

The main point I was trying to make was not that we should undersell ourselves, but if we feel compelled to mention what constitutes an "average scene", it's best to do it right after scoring, instead of right before.

[Evilpandabear]

last time dave directed i became the hideout's sole usurper maestro, so i'm always down with the buckman.

[nadine]

I was in the audience, and I found myself being a sole clapper at '2' or at '3'.

And after a while, I found myself peer pressured into thinking: well, I thought the scene was a 2, but the rest of the audience is being super generous, so I'll give it a 3.

The rest of the audience gave it a 5.

My claps got quieter and more timid

I did really enjoy the show (good job Shana and Andy!!), and I didn't feel as out of sync with the rest of the audience as I did a few weeks ago at the somewhat vulgar Meastro.

Nadine

[arclight]

The two times in the show when you can explain that '2 is average' is at the top of the show before you bring out the players or immediately after intermission (if any) before any scenes start. Any other time, and you fuck over the players. You fuck players over less if you do it after they've been scored; worst is right before they get scored. Saying it then is effectively telling the audience to score that scene low; this is a great way to encourage players to spit in your beer later.

It's equally true that the director's job is to make the players look as good as possible and that the players should not be concerned about their score. It's also true that the scores don't matter.

The whole point of the '2 is average' advisory is to help the audience get comfortable scoring since most of them haven't seen the format before (when in doubt, vote '2'.) It's just advice. If the crowd scores hot and is obviously enjoying themselves, let them! If you need to break up scores, change the shape or energy of the show with a slow or dramatic scene, or invent some BS Lightning Bonus Round, but don't tell the audience they're scoring 'wrong.'

It's pretentious, arrogant, and wrong. The audience knows what they like and telling them to vote differently is director's hubris. Better to challenge the players with more difficult material (scene from nothing!) and expose the crowd to a wider spectrum of improv (drama!) than to sandbag everyone with a midshow score 'reminder.'

[Wesley]

The problem with doing it after the audience has scored a scene is not that you poison that scene, but that you poison the next scene. You're saying "We'll let that 5 slide, but don't be so kind to this next scene." And the players in the next scene may not play as hard if they think they've already been destined to a low score.

I don't know if you are referring to a specific instance that occured, but I think like Bob said, the only two appropriate times to give the disclaimer is before the show in the audience warm-up or between rounds so that all players go into the round on equal footing.

I fully agree that in the bigger picture, scores don't matter and winning doesn't matter and it is all about putting on a good show, but I've also seen morale drop when improvisers giving their all to please the audience felt they only got a low score because of something like the comments about giving 2's.

I also agree that to build audience we want people thinking the show was funny and walking away saying "Wow, that show was awesome. I just kept giving 5's." Especially if it is selling out. I want people who did get in to tell those that didn't how unbelievably awesome it was to keep people clamoring to get in. But, if too many 5's is a problem (or any score that keeps the group moving together score-wise), the directors should pull out games to raise the stakes and challenge players so that successes truly deserve a 5 and failures deserve a 2. I agree that we should work to make lower scores a result of the games and ability to play them rather than the result of an audience correction.

[sara farr]

I agree with Dave, and Bob, and Wes, and all of you who feel like we should

a) NOT discourage the audience from giving 5s. They know what they like. And it's good for the players. And it helps the directors know what works and how the audience feels about the show

b) ONLY remind the audience about giving a scene a "2" at the top of the show -- before performers come out

c) Encourage directors to ramp up the scene difficulty if the show is high scoring so there can be a winner and an end to the show. But again, without telling the audience what you are doing -- saying "this scene is, or that scene was really difficult" feels like a cheat.

[beardedlamb]

i think you hammer in during the host intro that 2 is average and that these are professionals who fail all the time. explain how failure is part of improv and it's no big deal.

a fluffy, powderpuff show of all 5s is going to upset some of the more discerning types who actually want their voice heard. it's not a magic trick. we're not trying to fool people into liking improv. we're trying to train them to understand it's boundaries and abilities. for me, the best maestros don't have 5s until the late rounds. it ramps up to a nice ending much better that way.

the weird part of it is, it's all up to the audience and we should respect that, too. their input is their input and it's a great way to find out what a specific group of people want as the audience is different every time. you can really work FOR your audience once you get a sense of what they like.

let us not forget what is most difficult to remember about maestro. it's not about the score. it's about the show. not everyone can win and some people (including yours truly) have never won after years of playing. i've lost in a final two-person battle countless times, at least three to jon benner alone. as a cog in the machine of improv, you do whatever is necessary to give the audience the best show possible. having the hat game (the classic way to have a showdown) last for five minutes is not how you end a show. it's too long and zaps the energy from the end.

the scoring is to make the audience feel included, to bring them further into our world. you just do improv and let them do what they want, but give them realistic guidelines.

the other thing is that audiences will always be reluctant to score any lower than a 3 and if they know 2 is average then the whole show is above average, right?

thems my cents.
jeremy

[Wesley]

for me, the best maestros don't have 5s until the late rounds. it ramps up to a nice ending much better that way.
That's kindof the theory, right? That the show gets better as the "cream of the crop" rise to the top? I agree, I like the show to have that sense of build and crescendo.

I think the host should just say something cheesy before the show like "I only have one rule for you the audience. Vote your hearts. These people are professionals, they can take it. If you think a scene is a 2, hell, give it a two. In fact, 2 is about average for a scene. Don't be peer pressured into voting higher--or lower--than what you personally feel just because those around you are voting different. Stick to your guns and fight for it! It is OK for you guys not to agree on the score."
I actually think peer pressure to stay with the crowd is a big part of audience voting (and why shows tend to snowball in one direction as they go on) and this way you might put the onus on them to remain individualistic and even competetive with themselves to fight for their vote. I don't know.

[kbadr]

One interesting note, though. Since I've been playing Maestro, 2's are fairly common. I'd say that telling the audience that 2's are average has definitely had an effect.

[Dave]

kbadr:

I mostly agree, Dave (especially with the phrase "as director, my job..."--you should come direct Maestro!)


DONE!
2.18.06