The 3rd Floor Improv Blog

An improvised form that takes place in a single location in a single span of time, with no external edits of any kind. It is frequently referred to as an improvised one act play. Usually played with 2 improvisers but can be played with a full team. Players can enter and leave the scene, but the scene should not be swept and there should be no tag outs or cut to/cut backs.

An improvised set with 3 improvisers for any set amount of time.

An improvised set with 2 improvisers for any set amount of time.

Same people, person, character, or relationship. If the basis of the game is a character who gets angry when technology doesn’t work and takes it out on their roommate maybe we see this person have technology not work at the office or with family.

-Fun should win over voice of reason. We want to see fun so the VOR should feed it rather than defeat it.

This is an example of playing into a gift. Which in turn could create the game of the scene. If someone is to gift themselves in the same way, they might say something such as “I’m so picky” to which their scene partner should acknowledge this and  play into it by saying something that supports the idea of being picky, such as “So do you want green or blue?” Which would allow player 1 to now play more heavily into being picky throughout the scene.

Two Players up and One will initiate the scene with an offer you think your scene partner will not like. It can be anything as long as we avoid being sexist, racist, etc. For example something childish like “You just pooped your pants” or too over the top “you killed that entire nursing home”. This can go forward as normal or the initiator can continue to attempt a bad scene, but bad should be played fun rather than obtuse and the other player should do their best to continue the scene logically. 

Framing + Justification is Gifting and Accepting The Gift.Where Framing is the gift and justification is accepting the gift

For example: If I get excited every time anything science related is talked about, I can personally talk about science and test tubes and beakers and through my character continue to get more and more excited. Eventually maybe I change directions (rest the game) and talk about sports for a bit and my excitement dies down. If I then go back to science and calculate how fast the players throw the ball and add science to sport, I can again begin to become excited and now I have a pattern where Science = Excitement and Not Science = Loss of Excitement. Now this might be a great pattern (or game), but if my scene partner understands my pattern then we can fully amplify and heighten it with the power of 2 brains that are on the same page working on the same pattern.

For Example: If we have a scene where one player is terrified of balloons, and another player identifies this as normal we likely have nothing to play with, but if anther player identifies this as unusual we might have a playable game by exploring the why, activating this unusual behavior (in this case brining in balloons to activate the other players fear), and exploring what else is true.

Yes And, is accepting the reality of what has been created and adding to that reality, not just mindlessly agreeing. If someone is kidnapping your baby we want to agree to the reality of the kidnapping, but it does not mean we have to want our baby to be kidnapped. For example a Yes And to this could be “No don’t take my baby, take my toaster instead its more valuable” in this example we are Yesing the reality that the baby is being taken and Anding, by adding “Take My Toaster Instead” which now gives our scene partner something to play with. Or if we do say Yes we can still agree to the reality, but want to make sure we are adding (or Anding) the situation. For example “Yes you can take my baby, take both of them” In this scenario we actually say Yes,but a yes alone doesn’t move the scene forward much, so by adding “take both of them” we legitimize the reality of the baby being taken and heighten the reality of the situation by fleshing out that this is a parent that does not want their kids. An example of Not Yes Anding could be along the lines of a character stepping out and offering “I’m kidnapping your kids” or “I’m Bruce Willis” and a scene partner then saying “Stop playing around Jim we have work to do” or “Your not a kidnapper, you’re my accountant” or “No your not….”. To prevent negating a scene, agree to the reality and then play how you feel emotionally about that reality.

Where are we and what’s the reality of the situation. If we are in space, aliens are not weird. If we are on a farm, chickens are not weird. How do we act on a farm oppose to the DMV, how do we act at a party oppose to a church. We need to fulfill the obligations of the normal (base reality) before we distort reality. If we skip over offers the offer becomes base reality immediately, so if I have a peg leg and it’s not identified as unusual what else might be true, maybe we are on a pirate ship, maybe I have a parrot, maybe we find out I want to marry my parrot, but if out of nowhere I bring up remixing the new Skrillex album it might be funny and might become the playable thing, but it does not easily fit in our base reality. If we don’t know what the normal is it’s hard to decide what is weird. As stated by Mark Twain: “First get your facts rights then distort them at your leisure”.

Grounded is also the reality of where we are. The reality of outer space is different than the reality of the kitchen breakfast table. If we are in the old west grounded might be opening western doors, spitting in a spittoon, having a cowboy hat, etc. But if we are in this western scene and we go and ask for a Monster Energy Drink that is not grounded in our reality. Yes it might be funny, yes it might be playable, yes it is an unusual thing and might spin into a game, but it is not grounded. Grounded is treating the situation as if it is real. If we are in the old west and I am a cowboy I want to play the reality of a cowboy in the old west, maybe I’m a cowboy who is mad at my partner because they keep trading our goods for chickens, which might be unusual, but I’m still a cowboy, will respond as a cowboy, and play the grounded reality of a cowboy who is mad at my partner for trading our goods for chickens. If I start talking about radio active toxic chickens out of no where this is not grounded, if my partner trades 10 more items for chickens and I change my character to now be happy about the chickens my characters emotion isn’t grounded. If our grounded base reality is fear, grounded is keeping in line with our fear, we might build an arc and make a fearless decision later in the scene, but if we are afraid, we need to play the reality of our fear.

The UCB Improv Manual 

While an Armando is a bit looser in structure where a monologue begins the piece and can but does not have to be returned to after any number of scenes. 

Try to start in the middle rather than at the top. Rather then “So there was this one time we were at college and 3 of my friends were there, and we were……”  Start  “The principal was about to kick me out”. Jump into the action of the story and then flesh out the details of the action.

It’s similar to a montage, but who ever leaves the scene will start a new scene as the same character. If the scene that just happened was at a house and a character left, we should see them in a new location and not just outside of the house. Anyone can enter and anyone can exit the scene but whoever chooses to exit the scene MUST initiate the next scene. As the piece progresses it can and should speed up where new scenes are happening faster, and even if someone walks on stage walking a dog, says nothing in the scene and walks right off, they must start the new scene.  In this piece it is better to start slow and then speed up with scene transitions rather than starting fast and then ending slow.