Austin Improv

i think, as a few of us have pointed out already, story structure can and often does contain patterns which are then heightened...so narrative improv can and often does contain games. i don't know that i would say they're synonymous. you can still tell a story even if you don't "find/make" the game (and patterns will often emerge even if you're not actively looking for them or recognizing them). but it's definitely a useful tool and i don't see the conflict between the two you were describing earlier.

In improv, this might even take the form of tag-outs

I think that's why it felt weird because it was a tag-out situation. It feels like something else and not the narrative shows I feel like I've seen.

--Kind of more like a Frank Mills show, but I don't think they would consider themselves narrative.

I would gander it just comes down to how you prefer to play --lots of quick, pattern play? to tell a story or scenes being full units in themselves not to be "tampered" with.

EDIT: Tampered has a negative tone. A reality not to be broken.

I always liked the way Ian Roberts described it in this interview:

"My explanation is relationship is covered by the yesand part of improv. I kind of divide finding your scene into two aspects. The beginning is yesand part where you’re kind of fleshing out the world of the scene. The game part is the if-then part. You’re not just agreeing with the person and adding more information. You stop adding information and narrow it down. You start playing a pattern. If this happens, then this would happen and this would happen. That’s the game part of the scene."

And the narrative aspect can just be achieved by following the same characters as they pursue their wants, right?

Yes, And establishes relationship
If, Then plays a game
Following a character establishes a narrative

I understand this is all a major oversimplification, but that's how I understand it. Doing it well is a different beast.

Genre is a total game.

jillybee72 wrote:Genre is a total game.

tropes as patterns...i like that.

TeresaYork wrote:

In improv, this might even take the form of tag-outs

I think that's why it felt weird because it was a tag-out situation. It feels like something else and not the narrative shows I feel like I've seen.

There are all kinds of tap outs. A tap out is just a device. It's a tool.

I had the opposite experience during this tap out. The incoming performer heightened the scene as if we cut away in a screenplay. You wouldn't say these were 3 separate scenes. Or that the tap out disrupted the flow of the scene. As Roy would say, "we were chasing the ball." The first tap out placed us in the present -- where the most interesting interaction was taking place. Each subsequent tap out added new information & depth.

I was SO thankful for that tap out. It was such a wonderful gift from Mike Spara. Yeah there are tap outs that disrupt a pattern but let's acknowledge that there are tap outs that do the opposite. It's simply a device.

SamM wrote:
Yes, And establishes relationship
If, Then plays a game
Following a character establishes a narrative

I think this association is wonderful. Mine would be something like:

Follow your character
Yes And offers more. So Listen.
If this, then what?
Follow your character & the game


If I don't initiate the scene:


Yes And offers more. So Listen.
Make a fun choice.
Follow your character.
If this, then what?
Follow your character & the game



Make a fun choice means that I will "reset" my character based on how the scene was initiated. I will support the initiation as best I can, preferably in one move.

Spots wrote:All I'm saying is that I walk out of shows and I'll overhear people telling each other "Here's what I thought you were you going to do."

I heard a very similar conversation recently after a non-narrative show. I don't think there's any style of improv that's immune to this mindset.

For me, it comes down to making moves with the intent of provoking specific desired reactions (from the other players or the audience) instead of committing to what comes up in the moment and letting go of any preconceptions about how it'll play out.

I'm pretty sure it springs from wanting to control the show, which in my experience is not a problem that's exclusive to narrative.

Let's strike the word narrative out of my previous statement. I don't know what to call it. The sentiment is still there.

I'd propose something like this:

Broad strokes are those moves which allow your partner to react in hundreds of ways.

Narrow strokes are those moves which allow your partner to react in only a handful of ways.


Any form of improv will be narrowed if someone is caught up with "what happens next." For me thinking in terms of patterns, rather than story, helps to plant me firmly in the present and allows me to make broad moves.

ratliff wrote:

Spots wrote:All I'm saying is that I walk out of shows and I'll overhear people telling each other "Here's what I thought you were you going to do."

I heard a very similar conversation recently after a non-narrative show. I don't think there's any style of improv that's immune to this mindset.

For me, it comes down to making moves with the intent of provoking specific desired reactions (from the other players or the audience) instead of committing to what comes up in the moment and letting go of any preconceptions about how it'll play out.

I'm pretty sure it springs from wanting to control the show, which in my experience is not a problem that's exclusive to narrative.

I think the tenor of these conversations is important to parse, though. A lot of time what's really being stated is "Here's what I wanted you to do." That's not so cool.

But a conversation that really is about "what I thought you were going to do" is about group chemistry. It's a chatty and casual way of doing notes. I'd say most of the post show conversations Get Up has are along these lines. And it's usually the places where someone did something we weren't expecting that are most delightful. Either that or when we're on the exact same page. (Uh, am I just saying we're always 100% satisfied with our shows?!??!)

And yeah, nothing inimical about narrative and finding the game.

TeresaYork wrote:Taking classes at ColdTowne was the first time I had heard of "the game" and finding the game of the scene. It was so mysterious and frustrating at the same time especially when only after a few lines between scene partners, Arthur would stop us and say, "what's the game of the scene?" Already? We already have found the game? I don't even know where we are, who my scene partner is, etc...

Do you find the game? What is your process for finding it? I have always heard "if this is true, than what else?"

Is most improv finding a pattern and messing with it? Certainly feels true for short form.

Does "the game" have a role in narrative shows? I recently tried it and felt dirty --like I was violating the story in favor of a laugh.

Teresa! In regards to your original question, I also had the same frustration when I first learned about finding the game. I could NOT get it and it was extraordinarily frustrating.

I typically do narrative shows or montages, and I've found that my ability to "find the game" is directly correlated with how playful I'm being. It used to be A LOT harder for me to find the game during a narrative show (versus a montage) because I would consistently be taking myself too seriously and be too focused on the narrative and story structure, etc.

In the end, you find the game when you're in the moment, you're enjoying who you're playing with and you're looking to be playful. Then those patterns and opportunities "to play" pop out and it's delightful.

jillybee72 wrote:Genre is a total game.

Jill is so goddamn smart.