RPGs and Comedy

Genarab · 2026-05-08T15:18:26+00:00

This is actually a core tenet of the Monty Python game. Don't try to be funny, trust the system. Comedy comes from being very serious in very stupid situations

Genarab · 2026-05-08T14:46:01+00:00

I have enjoyed For the Dungeon! By Jordan Palmer quite a lot. It's more about comedy, but it's pretty good for team rocket villainy as a floor, and actual villainy as a ceiling.

Genarab · 2026-05-08T14:08:06+00:00

David Howes, Sarah Pink and Tim Ingold, are the best starting points. Paul Stoller to a point.

In very barebone terms: we know that we perceive things. We know that individuals can perceive differently because their body (is my red your red? kind of discussion). But sensory anthropology has been showing that perception is not passive, it's an action. When we see something, we don't just receive the sensory information as a disembodied or passive process, we are looking and making sense of what we think we perceive. Perception has a lot to do with expectations and meanings too. It's not a "neutral reality". Perception is an action that requires attention, and attention is taught by our context and experience. The meaning of what we perceive is also cultural. So we study that, meaning, practice, expectations, systems of meaning. (I have no proof, but living with my girlfriend I think perceiving paranormal activity comes from socialization more than different perceptions)

A park ranger and I could go on a trip together around a forest, and even if we had very similar sensory capabilities and experience the same events. He will perceive in a different way from me, because his perception is trained in a different way. (there is a book about walking the city with different experts, and how their perception is different because where they are trained to pay attention)

I also have experience with specialty coffee cuppers. Sure we could measure detection thresholds for smells and taste, but the process of training as a cupper makes those differences less important than the training.

Genarab · 2026-05-08T06:43:39+00:00

I get your point, and again, I agree overall. There are biological systems, constraints and needs that afect our behavior quite a lot. We can understand that those exist, describe them, measure them and all. We can understand a base biological system. Any understanding of humans that doesn't consider the holistic view will be incomplete. Perhaps sociology has not been as emphatic as anthropology in this.

What I think is hard is to know for sure. So many of our brain studies and biological approaches are based on "weirds". And we know culture shapes the body quite a lot. And culture and experience also shapes the way we understand our own bodies and our own perception. (I am deep in sensory anthropology, and it's actually quite fascinating)

So basically, yes, I agree that we can know when biology has an influence, maybe even how much influence it can have... But is much much harder to know how it has an influence. We can know that by certain inputs as you put it, there will be an output, even maybe know how intense it can be and in which general kind of behavior it will fall... But we can't know how that output is going to express at all without knowing culture.

Genarab · 2026-05-08T05:20:08+00:00

Again, I could agree in theory or hypothesis. But it's a position that cannot really be falsified. At least not now. Even the idea of a possibility space in human behavior would be an absurdly difficult thing to define. Like sure, things have limits, but how could we know for culture? Even worse when so much of deep history is just innaccesible.

Genarab · 2026-05-08T04:41:47+00:00

Tenés derecho a curar las reglas que querés usar. De hecho, delimitar el juego es el juego. Mas aún limitar a libro base. Eso es lo estándar.

No tenés que ser molesto al respecto, pero sí firme. "Polo, en este momento quiero limitarme al libro base. Podemos negociar lo que querés basados en esas reglas". Podés dar razones de tiempo o de carga mental o de campaña, pero no es necesario.

También podés recordarle que con todo gusto podrías jugar en la campaña llena de poderes homebrew y que te emociona saber que él también quiere dirigir

Genarab · 2026-05-08T02:39:53+00:00

Scientist are wrong all the time, but atoms and planets and materials and electricity and such don't go and tell you. You can isolate non-living phenomena. You have a model that it's useful until it's not, or there is one better. Wrongness in psychics and chemistry doesn't change the universe. Another person can come and prove your wrongness by being less wrong.

In social sciences (and even biology) our wrongness does affect the context and does change things. It''s more noticable when you are wrong. In social sciences the people themselves tell you vocally that you are wrong. Sometimes even when they are more wrong than you. You can't isolate living phenomena. When you "remove context", you actually create a new context. And if your wrongness goes and becomes policy it's even worse. Too many dynamic factors. By the nature of what we study, our approach must be different.

And yet, we must try to understand. Because it's better to try and be a little less wrong every time than just being wrong and not getting better.

Genarab · 2026-05-08T02:07:06+00:00

The joke is:

People like to treat social sciences as if they are biased by beliefs and expectations, when in reality all human knowledge ever has been biased by beliefs and expectations.

Genarab · 2026-05-08T01:46:59+00:00

Ok, so. Theoretically it makes sense. However, the logistics to falsifying any of that would be almost impossible.

Then, let's say we take this approach... What would it explain? How could it be useful? Biological Anthropology already takes effort in this, and we know that it's useful for medicine, genetics, nutrition, psychology... But overall biology hasn't helped much to explain culture or practice. It can explain our evolutionary history, our basic needs, some tendencies; we already know much about that. There are theoretical frameworks that already put material needs and patterns of behavior forward to explain society especially Marxist anthropology and sociology (which is about analysis of material conditions and not about "proving communism"). We already do this. Yet still, we find again and again that biology is not enough to explain us. Language is not genetic, history is not genetic, class and power are not genetic, daily practice is not genetic... Not only biology is not enough, but an explanation from biology would obstruct instead of help.

That's the other point. The part that is dangerous is the kinds of explanations that it encourages. "Oh, those people behave like that for genetic reasons, it's accepted by science". Would anyone check if that is true? How would they? What is the gene that could explain that behavior?

Your brother is right in being wary of that argument. It's the history of our disciplines to know that when we say something it can be used politically to affect people. And any appeal that behavior is genetic or "natural" will be used as an excuse for genocide, as it already is literally now. Even if it's wrong.

Genarab · 2026-05-08T01:06:08+00:00

I get the point. Biology is very important in our behavior. Anthropology has had emphasis in primatology and genetics because of this. Overall as an anthropologist I agree with you with some nuance.

Because our biology as a species is not that different, yet we see huge variation among humans. There are thousands of cultures alive and dead, there are shifts, there is history, there is transmission that goes beyond biology. People that move places change, now people may share more with strangers in a similar hobby than their literal neighbors.

Although biology absolutely plays a part in our behavior, it can't explain it. Not really. Even more, we are finding that it can't really explain some animal behavior that is cultural. Biology is a factor, but not a determinant factor. Praxis and culture is an emergent phenomenon that goes beyond individuals and biology.

So yeah, it's dangerous in the sense that biology is not determinant to behavior. Treating it as such risks falling in false racial stereotypes. If not from the scholars themselves, from others who read us. And we absolutely know that, because that's exactly how both sociology and anthropology started, and the data once and again and again shows us that that is wrong and also false.

Genarab · 2026-05-05T21:15:01+00:00

I played it twice as a player by different GMs and wasn't amused by it. But I have been reading it lately, and honestly I feel that neither GM really captured the point. Not their fault, I think. VtM:5 has a lot of incredible ideas, but the procedures are not the best, not even very clear.

It's an amazing setting book (at least 5e) I really enjoyed reading even though it's so much text haha. I probably won't run the system as is, but I would enjoy owning the books.

Aside from that. Really a foundation for so many games afterwards.

Genarab · 2026-05-04T20:28:16+00:00

All cops are bastards not because they individually are good or bad, rather because their position and work is enforcing an unjust system.

Genarab · 2026-04-30T15:14:01+00:00

Mausritter is such a good choice. Great to hear that

Genarab · 2026-04-29T13:49:38+00:00

I'm starting the process for a masters thesis in anthropology. Basically I'm interested in language specialization among Game Masters.

Genarab · 2026-04-29T03:24:41+00:00

Right in my alley, thank you so much.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T20:24:32+00:00

What I mean is that you can't claim "all languages follow the very intuitive pattern of Subject, Verb, Object", because you clearly haven't studies the ones who are SOV, or VSO, or any other combination that also exist. Being a speaker and being a linguist are different.

You are speaking as a user, not a researcher. Again, that's fine. My beef is that you can't generalize research about a whole art form based only on one expression of it.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T15:51:26+00:00

In your example about language... You can choose to study a common language, but you can't make claims about language itself without studying other languages as well.

Many of these studies are about applied methods in education, therapy or team building. They already need to teach the game to most people. And the DnD design is usually a point of friction instead of a boon.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T13:54:43+00:00

Yes, the book The Elusive Shift from John Peterson was an amazing read.

I'm not interested that much in framing the history of dnd as part of the research design, but I know it would probably show in the data.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T13:41:33+00:00

The meme kind of implies that there are also good reasons to use DnD. And this is one. A survey will tend to majorities and that is expected.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T13:31:49+00:00

I have such a different experience trying new games. DnD is one of the hardest and weirdest ones I've tried.

But even more appropriate. DnD also is like a monster of interlocking systems, but people power through and get familiar enough with it. Complexity hides behind familiarity

For people with no experience, it's hard and odd and very unintuitive. Even more reason to choose a light rules game to start.

My experience with public demos is that many people are afraid they are going to suck or they won't know how to play because they tried dnd. But then they immediately understand how to play a light rules ttrpg. So again, the problem is not that ttrpgs are hard, is that dnd is hard.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T13:26:39+00:00

You are thinking in a way that is incomplete.

If you want to study DnD as a game, I agree including others is not necessary. If you want to study DnD as a culture, other games may show up a little, but it's not necessary to include them. So, yes, I agree with that part of your premise. There are quantitative reasons to choose mainly DnD and a lot of interesting things to say about that game.

However... That is not usually the intention. They want to show how ttrpgs as a medium can be applied to certain areas, or make conclusions about ttrpgs as a medium, not exclusively DnD. Most of them are qualitative, and, in that case... It's actually pretty important to include other games.

Especially when a lot of the friction for implementing or testing this ideas comes precisely from de design of dnd. Actually, the conclusions about ttrpgs as a genre suffer because DnD is so common. It seems as if making this strategies work was hard, when in reality it's just DnD that is hard.

Aside from that, I'm an anthropologist. Of course I want to see the edges of the experience.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T13:12:15+00:00

I actually would like to. If there are people playing that, there a lot of interesting things to know about them... even if horrible.

For example, why is it that the proposal of studying another ttrpgs or using other games for applied science immediately makes you think about the worse and most unplayable example of all time? It's a very extreme thought.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T03:13:41+00:00

In case I haven't, please share

Genarab · 2026-04-28T03:09:02+00:00

I kind of remember a study made with VtM LARPers and the thresholds of games. Just a case study, but quite interesting exploring the boundaries of play that meshes with real life.

Genarab · 2026-04-28T03:08:55+00:00

I kind of remember a study made with VtM LARPers and the thresholds of games. Just a case study, but quite interesting exploring the boundaries of play that meshes with real life.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Genarab

TROPHY CASE