I mean, my speculating on what else might happen doesn't quite feel as fun when I'm speculating to the person that made the game.
![:P](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png)
I guess that's fair to not take it too personal? I imagine it'd be like DMing, and trying something a bit adventurous, only to have someone loudly complain or bitch about it during the session. For me, I think it'd still not feel great at the time, even if I would agree with a bit of distance. And given we're working with incomplete information, I'd probably just roll my eyes if they're off wildly. Hell, you probably already did that reading my confessional; I vaguely recall saying I hoped the House Point system did more than give out IDs, because I didn't care about IDs but it seemed fun. Lo and behold in the opening round; it also lets you get very steady cross-tribal lines.
I guess I can talk about how I view swaps in general (and by extension, how I view ORGs?), and you can nod your head like a good impartial host.
![:D](//storage2.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
When I think about ORGs, my first thought is just how many downsides these games have? They're insanely clunky, built using tech largely meant for other purposes. They demand a huge amount of time and commitment, and inevitably will over-reward players who can put more into it to an unhealthy degree. Having read a handful of other games, it seems how much fun any one player has can vary wildly, even within the same games. And it's not only host decisions that can cause that, but from other life circumstances outside of anyone's control. Like, you can be a perfect host and have a perfect line up, but if half of that lineup gets hit by a bus (or global sickness) 2/3 way through the game, then that game is still going to fizzle and die. There's no guarantee of having a good or deep run in any given game, or even having any friends. ORGs are also ridiculously hard to introduce to new people, just from the sheer amount of overwhelm they can cause. And when you boil most of them down, they all wind up just being conversations and social jockeying. Arena rides this line, allowing an anti-social player to dominate via challenges, but fundamentally that player still needs to at least
enjoy trying to socialize to some degree, because if they don't, why not just skip the middle man and do puzzles in your spare time? And really, how often do folks win in Arena because they're unbeatable in challenges? They at least need to pull off a decent TC as well. Sure, there are other formats that can change how much social skill matters over other skills, or what kinds of social skills matter, or other minor tactical calibrations. But there's no denying from an outside observer perspective, most of these games look and play extremely similarly. You log in, and post on a forum. You message people. Sometimes you do a chore or minigame. So if they have all these problems it begs the question,
why do people play them?Well, I'm sure there are a ton of different answers out there, any game that has more than one player is going to have more than one thing that people come for. But for me the the thing that stands out is that ORGs, in their own strange way, are incredible engines for emergent and unexpected narratives and drama. To my knowledge, (almost) nothing else comes close. They provide an incredible amount of tension, drama, and uncertainty. In a way, they are bizarrely accessible; you can have somewhat inconsistent access to one of the worst computers in the world but as long as it runs a web browser, you can still be competitive, if you're willing to fight hard for it. What other games come close? No video game I'm aware of (save one) lets people build relationships this deep, and then demands you break them or be broken. It's either co-operative (fun in it's own way but lacking the same degree of dramatics) or it's a competitive experience, in which case it's too short lived to really build intense relationships. Board Games that have similar dynamics almost always rely on pre-existing relationships, because no one is going to spend long enough sitting around a table with people they initially don't know and walk away with something that feels meaningful. It's just not sensible, logistically.
So if I assume that's one of the main draws to ORGs in general, it's only sensible to consider the role of host as a narrative designer. You can't wave a wand and get the story you want, but you still need to use the rules, challenges, and other setups to massage and manage tension. You can't allow the game to cool off too much, or people might forget to come back! But also you can't overwhelm them, or they might just shut down and tap out altogether. Setting the overwhelm concern aside for now, what can cause things to get too cold? Well, aside from real life things that there's no way to plan for or avoid, the worst thing I can imagine in a game is players being 100% convinced they know the outcome to something more than a round or two in advance. Hosts
cannot allow the game's landscape to calcify too much, or it will become dull. We observed a
very mild version of that in Ghibli 2; I know it was mentioned that a lot of folks found Valley 2.0 to be a bit dull? Because Forest 2.0 couldn't win a challenge, Valley 2.0 were just left waiting for the next thing to happen in their game for nearly a week. This is a spot where the show differs from the online games, mainly because in the show editors can skip the dull bits but also; the players are still living in a stressful and hard situation, and when people are under pressure for long periods, it's likely they'll want to do something, in an effort to instinctually relieve their fears, even if they're left alone for a few days. Hosting one of these types of games would be fascinating, because you'd want to design a set of twists and turns that are understandable and create fun and interesting stories in advance of knowing who will play in them or how.
Once I'm of this opinion, that hosts need to think about narrative beats and excitement, I assume every game has to have
some sort of twist or cleverness to keep things more uncertain in the midpoint, especially if veterans are involved. In my mind, the idea you'd leave us to our own devices for two full weeks with no shakeup was pure foolishness because the risk one Side has an alliance that completely calcifies and is indestructible and therefor boring is way too high. I know there was an Arena game that got a lot of positive attention on ORGY for explicitly not doing a swap for a long time and that was exciting for folks, but the changes in format between survivor and arena also massively change what tools the hosts have and the implications for things like that; Arena demands constant social shakeup by its' very nature, because you really don't know who will survive in any round and making plans for more than a round down the line is insanity because too much will change. But a more or less standard Survivor game? Some kind of swap was very guaranteed, I just didn't know what kind of format it would take.
I hope you don't balk at me describing this as 'standard' survivor, by the way. A lot of these twists
are interesting, but in my mind they only really shine when you have a variety of connections on both of the tribes. Switching for someone you don't really know into a situation you'll almost certainly immediately die in is just not going to appeal to most players, and the ones it does appeal to will likely find they make no progress. I think the first week being (mostly) standard with just the PBvO twist and some Owl Post stuff here or there was actually very solid design, because it gives the players a chance to get to grips with how they might use some of the mechanics before they're demanded to make high-stakes choices on them. And goodness knows they're in full swing now. I'll be curious to see what happens at a hypothetical merge although I admit I'm not as convinced as the others it will be at 11. A jury of 7 isn't unheard of, and that would mean this middle lasts for five more eliminations, which means at least one side will pick off all of the folks they don't want to keep and then need to start eating each other.
Fun stuff, if you aren't getting eaten.