I started watching Survivor years ago because my mom was a big fan and I wanted a show we could share and talk about. The more I watched it, the more I realized how much game design there is in the show (which is probably why it's my favorite reality TV show followed by The Amazing Race). Not only are there 1 or 2 weekly challenge games that all have to be designed, built, and (hopefully) tested prior to the competitors playing it, but there is also the larger game as a whole that had to be designed and is constantly evolving as the show continues to air. Most competition shows like this will keep the exact same game season to season and will just alter the difficulty of the challenges or find a new group of people to fill the show with drama (the one thing I don't like about all of these shows). However, Survivor and The Amazing Race will alter or add rules at least every few seasons to keep the game interesting - the Hidden Immunity idol, Exile Island, Redemption Island, having three teams compete, boys vs. girls, young vs. old, etc.
All of these changes are interesting, but none of them fix the broken aspect of the first half of the game of Survivor. When the game starts, two (or now three) tribes compete against each other in challenges after which the loser has to vote off one of their members, thus making the winners of the challenge even more of a threat for the next competition. In subsequent challenges, since the losing team will have less players, either their members will have to participate multiple times in one challenge or the winning side will get to sit someone out giving them a chance to rest up for future challenges, or both. In game design, this is called a positive feedback loop (I know that sounds weird for something bad to be called positive). The player who does well has an easier time doing well in the game. This is why the vast majority of the seasons, one team will continuously lose multiple challenges in a row. Sometimes if both sides have a bad apple that poisons the bunch and the losing side votes theirs out or if one of the losing side competitors is exceptionally good at one of the challenges then the losing side can make a comeback. This doesn't fix the feedback loop, but it at least makes it less of an issue that season.
For me, it's very depressing and boring to watch one side consistently lose at something (unless it's a feel-good Disney sports movie like Mighty Ducks where you know they're going to get better). So I would love it if the game designers behind Survivor could come up with some way to break this positive feedback loop with a negative feedback loop. For example, have the losing team pick which member of the winning team sits out in a challenge so that most likely their strongest team member would not be a factor. Or alternate individual and team challenges somehow similar to what Master Chef does. Simply fixing this feedback loop would have major repercussions on the game and would make it much more competitive and dramatic without having to trust the film editors to make a one sided game dramatic.
Interesting ideas on modifying the game. Have they ever done that where a smaller team gets to select members of the bigger team to sit out? What if the person(s) they select to sit out got immunity. That could make that decision totally more interesting. They can compete against a weaker team but they are guaranteeing that the stronger members stick around OR they can attempt to beat a stronger team with a better chance of them dropping a stronger player. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThat would definitely make things even more interesting. It would definitely add a ton to the strategy and still eliminate the positive feedback loop.
DeleteThis is also why Monopoly is broken, and why Settlers sucks if you're still at 3 points when everyone else hits 6 or 7. There's no coming back from that, no matter what you roll.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's why I like Settler's of America or the new Star Trek Catan (basically just regular Catan with some Star Trek flavoring and some game balancing ability cards). An alternative house rule I've heard about is if you don't get any resources for three turns, you get a free resource of your choice.
Delete