Least favorite Maestro Game

[kbadr]

I can't think of any games that I out-right hate. I think most of them have their place in a well-rounded show. Though, I have to agree that multiple groups speaking in one voice in a scene is kind of meh. Also, I don't like when more than 3 people have to speak in one voice. It makes it impossible to make eye contact and play the game correctly.

I have still never seen Rashoman played to its fullest potential. I think I'll try playing it a few times in the jam when I return.

[improvstitute]

Yeah, I purposefully kill myself just about everytime I play that game. What I meant was: don't sell your answer short. Give a fake answer but stick it. Sell it. Exude confidence that no matter how insane, that answer was right.

Don't bow and start to walk off before the audience actually yells "DIE!" It shortchanges them getting to decide if you live because the answer was funny. Try to go down with bad answers, but don't literally kill yourself by walking away from the game without a DIE being yelled.

Yes, Yes, YES, a thousand times yes to BE WILLING TO GO DOWN! (If you come to the jams you'll see me riding people about this constantly in all these elimination games: Scene with no S's, Beastie Rap, etc.) There should just about never be more than 8 answers in a category before someone goes down. My strategy is usually to give one real answer and then slightly off answers (unless the director targets me and then we just go at it).

AH-HA!!! Then we are in agreement afterall. I retract my total disagreement.

[acrouch]

My personal least favorite game is Slow Motion Samurai. With a passion.

Why?!

[kbadr]

My personal least favorite game is Slow Motion Samurai. With a passion.

Why?!

I still don't know why we pull this one out for performance. It's a great teaching game, but it feels weird to do it in a show more than once every 2 or 3 years.

[Wesley]

I think that's it. I just don't see it as performance so much as teaching. I think the audience enjoys it to some degree, but not to the degree that they do a Category Die or Beastie Rap or a We Can Do That! (?)

I also think that someone always tries too hard to "win" it. Myself included. The first time I had to do this in a show I hid backstage until everyone was dead, then opened the window and shot the survivor with a blow gun. It still feels cheap and to this day I sometimes cry in the shower over having done it.

But hey, the show must go on and I will play it to the hilt if asked. And people are welcome to try to convince me otherwise of its worth; maybe they see something in it that I do not.

I'm also not a big fan of Stunt Double, but I think it is because we haven't worked it enough to get it right, yet.

[Justin D.]

Back in the day when I started playing Micetro, we'd do Speak in One Voice with one set of three and a single player--usually on a first date or a parent reprimanding a child. That way one player could "torture" the set of three and there were fewer cues from the directors. The single player basically "directed" the scene. "Tell me right now why you love me and what you will do to prove it to me!"

I've seen SiOV played like this before, and it's probably the only way I've ever enjoyed the game, as a performer or audience member. Having two or more groups trying to speak in one voice is more annoying than not. Plus, it sets ups this odd dynamic where the audience watches to see which group is doing the "best job" at speaking in one voice, which I doubt is part of the goal.

I think multiple failures of the game led directors to add more to the game rather than focus on the basics of the game. Yes, go faster. yes, call the Character out if gobbldy-gook comes out.

I agree with this too. Which leads me to . . .

As for Speak in One Voice - we generally do it poorly. I hated this game until I saw the guys from Dad's Garage do it 2-3 times in Edmonton. They are completely badass at it. They go really fast and if they mess up, they back up and say the sentence over again (and over again if needed) until they get it right. Usually it is the next time through. They actually sound like one person even if it is 3-4 of them.

This is something that I've never seen done in a show before, and thinking about it now, I have no idea why that is. A major component to improvisation is communication, but it's almost seen as taboo to repeat yourself in this and other games. Although, . . . I still really don't like this game.

Take huge risks, try to take a dive, etc, but deliver everything with absolute confidence, and wait for the audience to kill you before leaving, even if you know what you said was absolute bollocks.

That's exactly where I get the most enjoyment in that game. I called love a type of drug a few Maestros ago and the audience couldn't decide whether to eliminate me or laugh. It caused a really weird murmur that I haven't experienced before.

I think the most fun comes when your decision to take huge risks inspires other improvisers to do the same. A couple of months ago I threw out "one fish" during the category of types of fish, then Justin Davis, Mike K and someone else completed it with "two fish", "red fish" and "blue fish". It was incredibly silly/stupid, but a few people told me after the show that it was their favorite part of the entire night.

I remember that, and it definitely instilled a sense of fun into the rest of the show. Diet Fruity Pebbles is also a favorite of mine.

I gotta go with "Good Bad Worse Advice" - it just never seems to work.

Wow, I can't disagree more with this one. I've never seen this game fail.

I'm a big fan of Word at a Time Expert, but it seems people always want to stick to one sentence at a time when it's played. Some of the best times I've seen this played or participated myself is when a performer starts a new sentence after saying a short one or stretching a sentence out after it seems like it reached a conclusion. The WaaT players should feel comfortable enough to talk freely.

The only time I've seen Slow-Motion Samurai done when the audience really liked it was when the directors told them they could all make sounds. For some reason, it's always played as a silent scene, otherwise. Slow-motion screaming is funnier than no slow-motion screaming.

[bradisntclever]

I forget who the directors were, but one week the opening game was a slow-motion race from the back of the stage to the front. It seemed a lot more entertaining than most slow-motion samurai games because people kept tripping or making insane expressions that everyone could see. It was more organized and less chaotic than most slow-motion samurai games and quite enjoyable.

[acrouch]

I also think that someone always tries too hard to "win" it.

When we get to the point where no one is trying to "win" Slow Motion Samurai then we'll be on the right track. Slow Motion Samurai should be a bunch of people trying to make something cool happen, fearlessly and without ego. It's a microcosm of Maestro (and improv in general, IMHO). For this reason (and the fact that the audience likes it) I think it's fun to do once every couple months.

[Roy Janik]

It's a microcosm of Maestro (and improv in general, IMHO). For this reason (and the fact that the audience likes it) I think it's fun to do once every couple months.

I like to do it whenever there's an unusually large cast, like 14 or 15... which usually happens once every couple months, I think.

[acrouch]

I like to do it whenever there's an unusually large cast, like 14 or 15...

Tru dat

[HerrHerr]

Knowing in advance that one person will win a point in Slow Mo Samurai helps in my opinion. Because i've seen it played where a) random arbitrary players get a point for no real reason b) those who died first get a point c) the last three standing get a point. Consistency would help.

But if the point of Slow-Mo Samurai is to not avoid dying then why does the last person standing get the point AND what are we telling the audience...the point of the EXERCISE is not to be awarded for winning, but for taking risks and losing...playing gracefully.

Yes, extra points do matter AND no, they do not. I've won just as many Maestros with that bonus point as well as without it. What that extra point often does is help someone survive past the first cut, but not necessarily beyond that. If you worry too much about not getting an extra point to start off the game, then you take yourself out of the show--at least for a little while.

[DollarBill]

"stab yourself in the face" is my least favorite. If you use mimed knives then it looks half-assed. If you use real knives you have the obvious, classic problem of mixing actual objects with other space objects which just looks wonky. Can WE PLEASE, play "dingle-dangle-dong-gobble" in "stab's" place.

[troy]

DON'T KILL YOURSELF

It is interesting - sometimes the audience laughs at this game because it is a train wreck. However, when it is done like DG does it, they roar in amazement.

Speak in One Voice, without fail, is amazingly satisfying for the audience. Even when no one takes risks and sentences are short, they love this game. Take risks, have fun, and feed off the audience. A group did it in Micetro a few weeks ago and it was one of the best I've seen at the Hideout because of exactly that. I, too, have become a complete convert to this game.

[kristin]

I don't know what the name of this game is, but it's the one where you do the last 30 seconds of a movie, then the last 30 seconds of the sequel revenge of the ___ or whatever, and then the last 30 seconds of the next sequel, ___ never die, etc.

[deroosisonfire]

I personally don't like the alphabet game. . . . And then there's the end of the alphabet,
"Xylophone! My xylophone is in my pocket!"
"You can't just change the subject!"
"Zonks! What am I saying?"
I've seen it be OK, be good, but never stellar.

All games suck when people just play the schtick and won't take a risk. But I've seen stellar alphabet game scenes before.


I hate new choice. It is 0% fun for me to play.